This is an update on the saga of the $909 parking ticket story.
Yesterday I received a partial bit of pre trial discovery material from the sheriff's office. It was a CD containing recordings of the radio traffic from the day I was arrested. Here is a transcript from the first track:
Dispatcher: 8-4-Williams
Officer: 8-4
Dispatcher: 8-4 If you are clear, can you check on a vehicle parked in the crosswalk in front of US bank only description I have is a large white semi.
Officer: 10-4 I've already been there, it's not in the crosswalk, it's parked east of the crosswalk.
You know I am one that believes that you should always strive to seek the cause of the problem rather than dealing only with the symptom. In this case it has become apparent that the cop, nor the Judge, nor the DA are the cause, so it would be futile to treat them as the enemy albeit that they might be aptly described as my opponents. My enemy is the parasitic bureaucracy. This is the evil that must be controlled. When this menace gets to the point where it goes beyond nuisance the only defense is to see that every attempt to pick your pocket is met with the result that they draw back a bloody stump.
It is like tying to deal with weeds or insects. It is imposable to kill them off because they breed far to fast, but you can take control measures to see that the impact on your life is minimal. Vigilance is the eternal price of liberty.
"Roger Shoaf" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news01.syix.com:
After it's dismissed, you could probably find a lawyer a few towns over that would love an easy paycheck and get you reimbursed for your time, effort, bad publicity and viligence from the chief and deputy for the false accusations. If you let it quietly die with a dismissal, your just allowing the next person they want to steal from to have to go through the same situation.
Maybe someone listened to the pararey that I and probably others on this newsgroup offered for you.
If you plan on doing bringing in a CD player, clear it with the security guys at the courthouse ahead of time. I say that because:
Last year I was in a local traffic court lending moral support to my teen aged son who was contesting a ticket. He'd been sideswiped on the highway by an elderly guy who might well have fallen asleep. A statey who showed up ten minutes after the accident and couldn't possibly have seen what happened ticketed my son a for speeding and lane violation.
The case just ahead of his involved a well dressed and pretty intelligent sounding guy who was contesting a traffic ticket for "turning right on red".
He told the magistrate that his planned defense was to show the court a video he'd made on the day of his ticketing through the windshield of a moving vehicle in the right hand lane approaching the intersection. He said the video showed that the "No right on red" sign was totally obscured by tree branches until the front of the vehicle was already in the intersection.
He went on to say that the security guys at the courthouse entrance wouldn't let him bring his video camera (with it's attached display screen) into the courthouse when he arrived, a few minutes before the scheduled hearing time. He asked the magistrate if he could clear the way for him to get his video camera from his car and bring it in.
The magistrate declined and fined him anyway. The guy immediately requested a hearing, which IIRC required his paying a $40 hearing application fee that day.
My son fared a bit better, and got his offense reduced to just a lane violation, not worth wasting the time and money fighting any further. He was vindicated when the insurer of the old guy who sideswiped him agreed to settle for the damage to our car, after I instituted a small claims case against him, 'cause I happened to have been the registered owner of the '95 Honda my kid still tools around in.
Not sure about your state, but in CA the law provides that if the officer can write a notice to appear if there was an accident and he has reason to believe that someone was guilty of a violation. The provision provides no requirement to sign this kind of ticket, they can't haul you in if you don't sign but it can be used as a basis for an arrest warrant. The law specificly mentions that the preperation and delivery of this kind of ticket is not an arrest.
Again diferent states have different procedure, but 49 of the fifty states are based on common law. The majistrate is an officer that is limited to issues like reading the charges and making decisions like an initial derturmination if the accused is being detained lawfully. He can also do things like set bail. I am a bit confused at the fine being imposed, it would seem to me that the accused would only be subject to a "fine" if he pleaded guilty, or if he was tried and found guilty.
Perhaps the $40 was bail to secure his appearance in court for a trail?
If this is what was going on the Magistrates refusal to watch the video might have been appropriate as he was not conducting a trial, but if it was a trail and the evedence was not permitted it sounds like a violation of the accused's right to present evidence.
I do not like these kinds of bargains. You accept a reduced fine today as acceptance of a $50 fine is an easier pill to swallow than defending against a bogus charge, and next week you get another ticket and then you are subject to a fine increase because you have a prior conviction, and with 2 points on your record, your insurance rates skyrocket. now for three years you have to pay for that initial act of accepting a convenience.
The decision might also make you ineligible for employment in certain jobs. For these reasons I fight the ones that are fightable.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.