To: bovik@CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-to: Robert Harper <rwh@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Traffic Court
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 12:07:09 EST
Message-ID: <11254.663440829@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: Robert.Harper@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

Hi Harry:

	Last July I was nabbed for speeding (44.1 [plus or minus 10, but never
mind] in a 25) on Forbes Avenue as part of a periodic round-up of people who
are traveling at a reasonable, but illegal, speed.  I sent in a "not guilty"
plea right away, along with my check for $135.50, and waited for a reply. 
Nothing happened, so come December, I wrote to ask about my case, and they
immediately scheduled me for a hearing.  After re-scheduling (the first date
was 26 December, 8:30AM), I went to court this morning, and my case was
dismissed because the officer failed to show up.  (I had a reasonably solid
case prepared based on the fact that the Vascar lines were completely worn out
on the day that they caught me.)

	I'm not sure what would have happened if neither of us showed up for
the hearing, but since I did and the cop didn't, it paid to spend two hours
listening to DUI hearings.  Why do I bore you with my stories?  Well, it
occurred to me that requesting a hearing, rather than waiting to be assigned
one, might have increased the probability that the cop would not show up. 
Here's the theory.  Since the ticket was issued as part of a general round-up,
and since they were using a two-cop scheme (one measuring speed, the other
issuing tickets), it would make the most sense from their point of view if
everyone who received a ticket that day were scheduled for a hearing on a
single day so that the cops could show up, and they would get a whole series
of convictions.  By requesting a hearing I ensured that I would be
off-schedule, making it more likely that the cops wouldn't bother.  I have no
reason to believe this other than that it would make sense if it were true. 
My suggestion: always force them to schedule a hearing, rather than let them
assign you one.

		Bob Harper