Message-ID: <kii3aAW00iQX16q0x=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed,  2 Nov 1994 20:14:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Loukas Kallivokas <lk0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: Harry.Bovik@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Traffic tickets
Cc:  


Back in June I posted the following:

> Last night I got a citation for "failing to come to a
> complete stop at a posted stop sign". I would like
> to contest it since, in my judgement, I did come to a
> "complete stop". What, in your opinion, would be a good
> defense? Any similar court experiences? I already sought
> Bovik's advice, but I didn't find something appropriate.
>
> Also: when I asked the officer about the reasons for the citation,
> he gave me a long story, speaking in an agressive and rather rude
> manner. He ended the story by saying that at the intersection
> where the stop sign was, "I came to a California stop" or
> "I made a California turn" (I am not sure). In any case, what
> is a "California ..."?
>
> Aside from the $90 fine there is a 3pt penalty. I had heard in the
> past that a court appearance might result in the reduction or
> revocation of the fine but the points will remain regardless.
> Is there any truth to that?
>
> I must say it was an uncomfortable experience with an unprovocatively
> intimidating and rude officer (I guess they train them well). Any info
> will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> -Loukas

I got a number of answers and requests for follow-up which I promissed
to summarize after I had "my day in court". Well, today I had it and
unfortunately, it only confirmed that the odds were not in my favor
(far from it). Here's what happened: The cop showed up and he was well
prepared. He had taken notes on *his* copy of the ticket that were
somewhat irrelevant to the specific violation (i.e., talking about the
course, direction, speed of my car, weather and lighting conditions),
yet they were conveying two things to the judge: a) that he knew what
he was talking about and b) that my overall driving pattern was
erratic (untrue). I was prepared (using arguments primarily
technical), but it wasn't easy to argue against the non-existent.
Final outcome: the judge amended the initial violation to something
else which basically held the same fine, but no points. That was
something.  Lesson: none. Recommendations: none. It is simply an
exercise of your convincing power with the odds against you, unless
you have witnesses, the cop doesn't show up, etc. The frustrating
thing is that the guy was lying, having made up a story (then and now)
that was untrue, and there was nothing I could do about it.

Below, I list the responses I got. This has also been sent to bovik.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitely fight it.  At least make the cop have to show up in court with
you.  Generally, it is the opposite of what you suspect, they may make you
pay the fines, but will throw the points out.  This is the more desireable
situation since the increase in your insurance will cost more than the
face value of the ticket.  You might even get it thrown out completely.
The day I was in traffic court this year the guy was letting everyone off.
Probably depends on their mood, but I'd at least fight it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, based on my recent experience: You might as well go to court (costs an
extra $5), but don't expect any positive outcome.

Here's what happened to me: I got a ticket in early March for "Failure to come
to a complete stop at a stop sign".  It was a totally bogus charge -- the cop
originally pulled me over because I did not have an up-to-date registration
sticker on my car. I explained that the new one was in the mail, showed her the
appropriate receipts and insurance papers, so then she wrote the ticket for
the stop sign.  She did not cite me for an expired registration (I don't know
if she could have, really, since it was just a matter of waiting for paperwork
in the mail).

I *know* I stopped at the stop sign.  There was a light-colored, late-model
Volvo sedan in front of me, and I was trying to figure out if it belonged to a
friend of mine.  It stopped *well* into the intersection (as frequently happens
in Pittsburgh), and I stopped behind it (within a couple feet of the stop
line).  My judgement was that, since I was completely stopped within a
reasonable distance of the stop line, I shouldn't (and couldn't) roll forward
*into* the intersection and stop again.  Once the Volvo proceeded, and I
determined that there were no other cars waiting to go through the
intersection, I proceeded as well.  Shortly after that, I was pulled over.

So I took it to court.

I decided that I would *not* mention the expired registration bit, just in
case the court decided to cite me for that after the fact.  My defense was to
be the (true) story above.

In court: The officer's testimony consists primarily of reading the information
from the citation.  This was at least 2 months after the citation, and when
questioned, she remembers little of the actual circumstances.  She did not
remember the Volvo, or the weather that day, or pulling me over for an expired
registration.  In addition to reading the ticket, she tells the court "It was
cold.  I wouldn't have climbed out of my car to issue a citation unless he
did something worng".

In short, the judge said, "Looks like she got you.  Guilty."  His explanation:
Even though I stopped within a reasonable distance of the stop line, the fact
that the car in front of me stopped *in* the intersection does not relieve me
of having to stop *again*.  The fact that there was no where for me to go to
come to a stop again (this fact was uncontested by the officer) was irrelevant.

It was all over in less than five minutes; the judge was writing "Guilty" on
his form even as I was telling my story.  I have absolutely no idea what it
takes to get a ticket thrown out of court; clearly, telling the truth has no
effect.  Would my story have carried more weight had I explained that she
first pulled me over for an expired registration?  Perhaps, but that in itself
may have carried a more severe penalty.

In the elevator after my hearing, I saw the officer and asked what I should
have done to avoid getting the ticket, given the circumstances I described.
She said, "I guess you should have rolled forward just a little bit and stopped
again, just to make it look good".  Feh.

I have the option to appeal.  My hearing was on June 13, and I have 30 days to
file the appeal, but you have to pay court costs in advance.  At this point,
I'm so disgusted by the whole process that I'm ready to give up.

My advice to you:  Try to fight it, but be realistic.  The truth is irrelevant;
the police and the court are in this together.  At the very least, your going
to court will cost the city a day's overtime for the cop to show up, court
costs, etc.  If everyone who got a ticket did this, it would soon dry up as
a source of revenue.  And really, this whole ticketing business has much more
to do with revenue than it does with public safety.

Good luck, and let me know how it goes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this is still useful:

In my experience, it's always a good idea to fight it, if you believe
you were in the right.  The magistrates are usually pretty reasonable.
They can dismiss the whole thing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last year I contested a ticket for supposedly failing to make a complete
stop.  Unless you have other witnesses or some kind of proof that you
stopped, it's your word against the cop's, and the judge will believe
the cop.  Your only chance then is if the cop doesn't show for your day
in court, which is doubtful.

The judge called a rolling stop a "Pittsburgh stop", although I've always
found Pittsburghers take forever at stop signs -- stop, 1, 2, 3, 4, then
check if it's clear -- ugh!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think this is what you want to hear. but, a complete stop means
"no forward motion". Your wheels can't be rotating. A rolling stop is
legitimately illegal. Hope you beat it, but if you were moving you were
on the wrong side of the law.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>...What, in your opinion, would be a good
>defense? Any similar court experiences?

I have only been there to contest hefty parking tickets but
confidently sticking to your story have always worked for me.

>"I came to a California stop" or
>"I made a California turn" (I am not sure). In any case, what
>is a "California ..."?

A "California stop" is when you approach an intersection, slow down to
about 10mph or 15mph, look both ways as you slide through the
crosswalk, and continue to buzz on through.  It's usually used in jest
and, in my opinion, an inappropriate term for the officer to use.
Given your description of his general attitude, I guess I shouldn't be
surprised.  All other things aside, I would elect to at least write a
letter to whoever is in charge of this officer (or maybe the mayor's
service center) (or both) complaining about his unprofessional
attitude.  The officers badge number should be on the ticket and you
could call somewhere downtown (maybe traffic court?) to determine the
appropriate address to send your letter.

>Aside from the $90 fine there is a 3pt penalty. I had heard in the
>past that a court appearance might result in the reduction or
>revocation of the fine but the points will remain regardless.
>Is there any truth to that?

I do not know, but a call to traffic court will probably tell you one
way or the other.

One other piece of advice about traffic court: make sure you schedule
a hearing WITH the officer present.  This is different than an open
hearing in which you just show up at traffic court and wait your turn.
In my experience, in the presence of any ambiguity, the judge will
either only offer you a reduced fine, instead of a pardon, or allow
you to reschedule the hearing with the officer present to afford their
separate point of view.  I say skip this first hearing altogether and
directly schedule a hearing with both of you present.  Note that you
must first send in your ticket with a plea of "not guilty" and wait
for it's receipt.  Then, once you've got the ticket in hand, as well
as the standard letter from Judy MacFarland directing you to traffic
court ("where every consideration is given"), you call the number on
the letter and ask to schedule a hearing with the officer present.

Good luck and don't forget to stick to your guns.  Don't let them try
to "roll you over."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bummer.  Unfortunately, you stand almost no chance of overturning it,
since in the end, it's your word against his, and his will prevail.
That is, *if* he shows up at all.  The way to win a ticket is to contest
it and have the cop not show up, which is a pretty common result.
Then you win, no contest.

What you did, or at least what he *purports* you did, is often referred
to as a "California stop", meaning a rolling stop where you slow down to
a crawl, but never really stop.  It's called a California stop to poke
fun at the supposedly aggressive California drivers.  (Interestingly,
having lived in both Pgh and CA for much of my life, I can firmly state
that Pgh drivers are much more aggressive, and much worse, too!)
Anyhow, it's illegal (of course).

There are entire books devoted to the task of getting out of tickets.
I bet Borders bookstore carries one or two.

Good luck!!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <CrrH6I.B5w.1@cs.cmu.edu> you write:
>He ended the story by saying that at the intersection
>where the stop sign was, "I came to a California stop" or
>"I made a California turn" (I am not sure). In any case, what
>is a "California ..."?

California stop:  Slowing down but failling to come to a complete stop
for a stop sign.

I don't have any advice, but I do have an amusing story told to me by
my high school physics teacher.  I am a little skeptical myself, but
here goes.

He shows up in court for failing to come to a complete stop for a stop
sign.  Of course he shows up hoping the cop won't so that the citation
is thrown out, but the cop shows.  Well, on to plan B.  When it comes
time for him to question the officer, he asked him to watch as he
tossed a coin in the air and caught it.  He then asked the officer if
he saw the coin stop at any moment while it was in the air.  The
officer said no.  He then pointed out that it had to come to rest
before beginning to fall and that obviously there were some cases
where the officer could not determine that an object had come to rest.
The judge ruled in favor of the physics teacher.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am afraid that your chances of winning are small, but give it a try
if you have time. At least you'll force the cop to show up. They usually
schedule the cop so he'll have a few trials on the same day, so you can
try to screw up this plan by requesting a continuation (ie. mocing to
a different date). If the cop shows up, you can only say that you came
to a complete stop and ask the cop some details about the situation. You
can pray that if the cop is sufficiently bad on details, the judge just
might give you the benefit of the doubt. Don't count on it, though...
The cop will most likely forget what happened by the time of the trial
(if your ticket was "routine"), and in his testimony he'll just
read the info off of the ticket.

Good Luck!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------