Off Topic - traffic ticket question

[93-525i]

Hi All,

I have a question regarding a traffic ticket I received out of State. I live in Oregon but got a ticker about 3 hours away in Washington from a State Trooper for Neglegent Driving. I plan to argue the ticket. The thing was that I was passing a car in a double solid yellow lane. What happened was that A passing lane started on my side and a car from the slow lane cut me off and got into the fast lane and continued at 50mph. He hit is brakes so I swerved and passed him in the oncomming lane. Of course I checked that there was no oncomming traffic and it was a long straight road. The cop was really pisses, saying I could kill someone, when in reality I was more aware of my surroundings than the other cars around me. I also think he didn't see the car in front of me cut me off in the fast lane because of his position relative to the onciomming traffic. He said this was the most neglagent driving he's seen in his career, which I find hard to believe. I found a couple of discrepancies on the ticket, such as my eye color and the expiration date of my drivers license. Could these tecnicalitie be grounds for dismissal? All it says on teh ticket is neglegent driving, nothing else. This was also a state trooper in Port Angeles, Washington, which is 3 hours from Portland. Being a state trooper I was wondering If I can request a court hearing in Vancouver Washington, which is 15 minutes from me and 3 hours from him.
I don't make a habbit of driving neglagently and have nothing on my driving record, this being the first thing. I would have my hobby (driving) to be the cause of harm to someone. Thanks for any input.

[Kalevera]

Make diagrams. Present the case clearly and concisely. Point out the discrepancies in the cop's work, but don't attack him as a person (as he attacked you). The key will be to make the cop look like an idiot without saying it outright. You'll get further by suggesting that the cop doesn't have a good understanding of the situation than by admitting that you did something illegal, however necessary it was to avoid an accident.


best, whit

[ThoreauHD]

You have to go to court where the charge took place. You cannot change location because it's closer to you. Saying that there are discrepencies with your eye color or date of drivers license will only piss off the judge.

The best that you can work for is a limited fine. I suggest you get a lawyer. You can go to the traffic court where you will be going, and hire an attorney there. Here is the reason why you should get a lawyer:

"The thing was that I was passing a car in a double solid yellow lane."

Game over. Everything after that will assume to have been caused by this. Get a lawyer. Have the lawyer explain exactly what happened with a diagram or verbally.

Normally, when you make an honest mistake, the cop will be on your side. Like if somebody stops in the middle of the highway, and you backend them. It's your fault, but they caused it. Cops are sympathetic to dealing with stupid people. This cop seems to be very angry with you. This cop sees the judge that you will see every week. You don't. If he isn't on your side, you don't have a chance in hell. Again, get a lawyer.

[632 Regal]

I cuncur with a lawyer, look for a good traffic violation attorney such as googling your state and add "DUI" or "OUIL", these guys are pros when it comes to traffic related offences, they do charge though even since your violation didnt occur from a DUI or OUIL offence. Call and see what the fight is worth to you.


You have to go to court where the charge took place. You cannot change location because it's closer to you. Saying that there are discrepencies with your eye color or date of drivers license will only piss off the judge.

The best that you can work for is a limited fine. I suggest you get a lawyer. You can go to the traffic court where you will be going, and hire an attorney there. Here is the reason why you should get a lawyer:

"The thing was that I was passing a car in a double solid yellow lane."

Game over. Everything after that will assume to have been caused by this. Get a lawyer. Have the lawyer explain exactly what happened with a diagram or verbally.

Normally, when you make an honest mistake, the cop will be on your side. Like if somebody stops in the middle of the highway, and you backend them. It's your fault, but they caused it. Cops are sympathetic to dealing with stupid people. This cop seems to be very angry with you. This cop sees the judge that you will see every week. You don't. If he isn't on your side, you don't have a chance in hell. Again, get a lawyer.

[Jay 535i]

I found a couple of discrepancies on the ticket, such as my eye color and the expiration date of my drivers license. Could these tecnicalitie be grounds for dismissal?

Probably not. That such discrepancies can lead to the case being thrown out is a common misconception.

Get a traffic lawyer and you'll beat it. A good traffic lawyer is worth his/her weight in gold. I know.

[Alexlind123]

It sounds like in any case, it will be at least reduced to illegal passing.

[SRR2]

Here is the reason why you should get a lawyer:

"The thing was that I was passing a car in a double solid yellow lane."


The legalities of this probably vary from state to state, but, here in PA the double yellow is 'advisory' only. No passing zones are required to be signed at the beginning and end. A typical situation where a pass on double yellow is permissible is when you want to get around slow moving vehicles like farm machinery or overweight trucks and so forth.

[SharkmanBMW]

good info, all of you, but it really is guilty till proven innocent!

A lawyer will win, you won't!

It will cost you at least the cost of the ticket, if not triple!
It may be more realistic to pay it and forget it!

I have been to court many times, some I won, some not, BUT the thing that remains the same in every case, is the judge is against you - you really have to prove yourself well!

If you admit you went over the lane, you are guilty. You have to get sympathy to win!

[Jay 535i]

good info, all of you, but it really is guilty till proven innocent!

A lawyer will win, you won't!

It will cost you at least the cost of the ticket, if not triple!
It may be more realistic to pay it and forget it!

I have been to court many times, some I won, some not, BUT the thing that remains the same in every case, is the judge is against you - you really have to prove yourself well!

If you admit you went over the lane, you are guilty. You have to get sympathy to win!

It's really not that simple. The law is all gray areas, and an expert will know how to minimize the damage. Also, the prosecutor is often willing to compromise, but it takes an expert to make the most of that situation, too.

When you're trying to figure out if paying a lawyer will be cheaper or more expensive than paying the ticket, don't forget to factor in what a conviction will do to your insurance premiums.

I've been charged twice, got a lawyer twice (these guys (http://www.xcopper.com/)), and had great results twice. I wouldn't go into court without them.

Sure, there are no guarantees, but in my experience, in Ontario at least, it's the insurance companies you have to fear more than anyone else. It's worth almost anything to avoid a conviction and keep your premiums low. What a lawyer will take from you now is probably a fraction of what your insurance company will take from you over the next ten years if you're convicted. YMMV.

[SharkmanBMW]

in quebec, I have had tickets totalling 17 points accumulate, then lawyer up and fight.

Even if you lose half your points, your insurance company does nothing!
It makes no difference.

My point was that if you say you did something, you will be found guilty Unless, the judge "sympathises" with you.

If you say "I did it, but"
you are guilty,
YOU did something YOU knew was wrong... it is up to you to convince them WHY and hope they "care" enough to let you off. BUT they don't have to , you admitted you did it!

[Alexlind123]

If what you said is true, you have a bullet-proof case for at least reducing the ticket to passing in a no-passing zone. The ticket for negligent driving is probably about $375.

[Evan]

Is there reciprocity between OR and WA?

Will the ticket affect your insurance premiums?

Your explanation of what happened was difficult for me to understand.

[mikell]

You need the lawyer. Negligence is truly an ambiguous thing; it's not like running a red light, where you either did or did not do it. Negligence is, basically, the failure to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances. That "reasonable" standard is all gray area, and you may be able to explain your way around the fact that you crossed a double line. Special circumstances can be considered in evaluating your behavior. There is, of course, the testimony of the officer and his conclusion of negligence - they are always given great weight by judges & juries. It helps if something happened that he did not see.
Forget the technicalities - the ones that can sometimes work are more substantive - like a ticket that states the offense occurred at a location that doesn't exist, or on a date you can prove is wrong - something that goes to the substance of the offense.
Good Luck.

[93-525i]

Actually the ticket I got was for $550. I looked at teh Washington State Legislature page and looked up the Statute code 46.61.525 and it says it's a traffic Infraction and subject to a $250 fine, but mine is a little more than that. I called 2 courts and the Washington State Patroll office and no one knows if Washington shares ticket information with Oregon. People didn't even know this Statute for the negligent driving of Second Degree and thought it was a Criminal offense like the First degree is. Big difference is that for this to be a criminal offense it has to involve alcohol or drugs. So I'm getting a fine for more than double of what the State Legislature Website says.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.525

[Alexlind123]

Was in in a construction or school zone?

[SharkmanBMW]

$550, ouch!

The lawyer will likely take all of it in order to get you off, but you end up without the offence on your record.

were you alone in the car?
a witness makes a HUGE difference.

[93-525i]

No school zone or anything, it was just a clear Highway. I had my fiance in the car.

[SharkmanBMW]

No school zone or anything, it was just a clear Highway. I had my fiance in the car.


as long as your witness is there to testify, you have a much better chance, SHE saw what the cop "didn't" that made you do what you did...

If the cop was alone and you weren't, the court will lean a little your way.

[wingman]

You have received some sound advice. I don't pretend to know US law but be aware that generally neg drive is an 'umbrella' offence. It can cover everything from driving too fast for the conditions to changing a CD track and running off the road. There may have been something that the trooper saw you do that contributed to the situation otherwise he would probably have booked you for a specific offence. What you don't say is how far you followed the guy who cut you off before he braked and how close you were to his rear end. A common thing we see in tail enders is someone cutting someone off, the cut-off person riding the tailgate of the cutterofferer, the cutterofferer being a smart arse and touching the brake and the cut-off person crashing up the back. I'm sure this wasn't the case but be sure to tell your lawyer EVERYTHING. Judges appreciate honesty-they HATE liers and they can smell one a mile away.

Best of luck in court!

[93-525i]

The thing is that everything that happened was almost instinctive. I would have rear ended the guy would I not have swerved. When I was in the oncomming lane I tried to get out asapso I had to speed up. There were care on my left and the oncomming lane was the only way to avoid the vehicle directly in front of me. Now I wasn't going to argue with a pieed off cop, and I was still in shock from what occured as was my fiance, who was also in the car. I think I can contest it becuase the ticket is for "negligent driving" but I was trying to avoid the accident in the only way I saw at that time. This is anything but negligent driving.

[joshua43214]

The only time I ever got pulled over fo rmy driving, was when I was testing for a bad wheel bearing on a car. After choosing a good spot in traffic to load side to side, someone behind me called me in as a dui and a cop was on me in a few moments. He raged all over me as well, handed me tickets for failure to control, reckless driving, driving with no ops (always keep wallet in tool box) and driving with no insurance. I went down and spoke to the prosecutor, got the no ops and no insurace tossed, and had the other 2 reduced to a load muffler charge with bond forfeture. They make more off you if you forfeit your bond than they do from a muffler charge.

end result was 1/2 lost pay,and $150.00 costs with no points on my liscense.

Its really all about the money, tickets are a source of revenue, and as long as they get their cut, they will let you go. Lawyer might save you a trip to court though, not sure what your time is worth but it may save you money to hire one. I never stood in front of the judge, and I'll bet your lawyer won't either.

[genphreak]

...not sure what your time is worth but it may save you money to hire one. I never stood in front of the judge, and I'll bet your lawyer won't either.Sounds like good advice.

You have to be confident of making a case that you were avoiding an accident.

If your witness is credible and can back you up on confidently and you can succeed in making this clear, perhaps the trooper (if eventually you end up in the same room) will claim not to have seen the events before the alleged offence. The reality is that the trooper was behind you so the court would probaly be happy to believe he had a good view of all the events.

He'll happily state that you were driving like and idiot from his point of view. The judge will likely find in his favour as he would be keen to do- given yet another young male driver in there trying to use the law to his advantage. The judge is far more likey to be on the trooper's side than yours for many other reasons too.

Thing is, did you use the brakes to give yourself more room before the impact you were faced with? Any dicussion would see the trooper being asked if he saw your brake lights (and he probably will say he didn't regardless of whether he can actually remember). My e34 stops harder than most cars so if someone braked hard in front of me I wouldn't have to go round them. Reality is I might, if it was reasonably safe to do, but many drivers I see would drive around the non-seeing, non-signalling idiot regardless of the law (more as a result of a little rage- not that you did tho).

But ask yourself; Are you sure you were keeping an eye out on this guy and giving him/her room to maneuver? I mean you would have to prove that your only way out of the accident was to cross an unbroken line; and it would have to be reasonably proven that an emergency stop was not sufficient. Indeed it will help you to look into how many similar cases successfully prove such a defence.

If it was sufficient negligent driving may be legally justified in which case the judge might say you got off lightly.

After all if a lane ends people do pull out (panicing or being stupid, often much earlier than necessary) and by law keeping a safe distance is something you always do before having to avoid an accident.

Perhaps you should pay the fine, avoid the trouble and be more paranoichally careful in future- idiots always need space, and good drivers give it to them- one has to spy them up ahead before the weird-**** can happen: Hats on the back sill, hats on heads, weaving around, dirty windows/crappy cars, children in the back, all sorts of things can warn you of inconsistent drivers... there are those you see watching the birds, console TVs or using the phone or other device of distraction... the list is endless.

I don't know why some of these people drive cars- they don't actually seem to be genuinely trying to get anywhere....

Gee it sucks but we can't get the idiots off the roads, they vote for idiots and, I guess that is in a lot of powerful people's best interests.

[wingman]

Its really all about the money, tickets are a source of revenue, and as long as they get their cut, they will let you go.

Fact: "Tickets are a source of revenue."

So are income tax, water and land rates, GST, petrol tax, import tariffs, train tickets, vehicle registration etc etc. Tickets were not invented to just earn money they were invented as a deterrent for breaking road rules. At times the unfortunate, misinformed or just plain unlucky get caught in the net. This is indeed a tragedy. We all err sometimes (and I'm not saying that our board member erred), but if we make a mistake, get caught, then just write it off as "ahh that cop was just revenue raising" how the hell will be be able to improve our road manners. Tickets are black and white. The court will hear the evidence and judge accordingly.

[93-525i]

The cop was actually not behind me, he was waiting by the side of the road in front of me, he saw the whole thing from the front. But his view was partially blocked by the slow lane since this all happened in the fast land and the oncomming lane. The 2 lanes on my side did merge into 1 after I got back into the fast lane so there was a lot going on there. The more I think about this the more complicated this was. Oh and yes, I would be fully confident in the stopping power of my 525, however I was driving the fiances Hyundai Elantra and that's a whole different story.

[genphreak]

The cop was actually not behind me, he was waiting by the side of the road in front of me, he saw the whole thing from the front. But his view was partially blocked by the slow lane since this all happened in the fast land and the oncomming lane. The 2 lanes on my side did merge into 1 after I got back into the fast lane so there was a lot going on there. The more I think about this the more complicated this was. Oh and yes, I would be fully confident in the stopping power of my 525, however I was driving the fiances Hyundai Elantra and that's a whole different story.Awww **** you wouldn't want to have to emergency anything in one of those yoghurt cartons. Now that's something the judge might believe... plenty of judges drive fat cat luxo-cruisers and might be convinced (probably already does think) that the car you were driving shouldn't even be allowed on the road. Thing is, they might then hold that against you... ('Damn boy- should ha bin driving a good- ol' cad-eee-laaac...') :D Nick, best of luck now.

[93-525i]

I acutally had this happen to me once before, not the ticket, but the break check. I was in an SUV and a car hit his breaks at a green light, yes, green. I reacted by getting between him and the sidewalk, no pedestrians and I was not on the sidewalk, but in thebike lane and I avoided an accident. I have a fairly good reaction time and I love driving, so I pay very good attention as to what goes on around me. I have a clean record/no tickets, ever since I starter driving, in about 1995.

[casurfer911]

check out this website http://www.ticketassassin.com/ In California you can fight a traffic ticket by mail. I have done it twice and both times I won without having to leave the house. The advantages are that you dont have to drive down to the courthouse for 8 hours (in another state for you), the cop doesn't get paid a dime for filling out all their end of the paperwork and writing their account (where they normally get some rediculous amount of money to come into court). The cop wont write his account of what happens until 2 months later (he has a better chance of forgetting who you are.) If you still lose you can fight it in court the old fashioned way. I would look into if the same laws apply in your state, i know its saved me a lot of money and time. Both time the cop didn't fill out his paperwork and i won no contest.

[genphreak]

check out this website http://www.ticketassassin.com/ Now that really is a HOT tip :) Nice one casurfer911!

[93-525i]

That is a really useful website but it's only for Cali and not for Washington :(

[tdgard]

Have not seen this suggested yet. In GA you have the ability to reduce 1 ticket every 5 years by attending traffic school. You blow a Saturday-spend money on the school-and they only have to reduce by 10%. But any time the ticket is reduced, it cannot go on your driving record. Not sure about your state, but that is how it works here. If it's about insurance rates and driving record, that may be the way to go. If it's about principle, go fight it. I found--in my younger years--that this actually worked once per court system every 5 years. Probably would have worked once per judge.;)

[93-525i]

I found something interesting on the Washington State Legislature page. Read #3 below:

(1) A hearing held for the purpose of contesting the determination that an infraction has been committed shall be without a jury.

(2) The court may consider the notice of traffic infraction and any other written report made under oath submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was the basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at the hearing. The person named in the notice may subpoena witnesses, including the officer, and has the right to present evidence and examine witnesses present in court.

(3) The burden of proof is upon the state to establish the commission of the infraction by a preponderance of the evidence.

(4) After consideration of the evidence and argument the court shall determine whether the infraction was committed. Where it has not been established that the infraction was committed an order dismissing the notice shall be entered in the court's records. Where it has been established that the infraction was committed an appropriate order shall be entered in the court's records. A record of the court's determination and order shall be furnished to the department in accordance with RCW 46.20.270 as now or hereafter amended.

(5) An appeal from the court's determination or order shall be to the superior court. The decision of the superior court is subject only to discretionary review pursuant to Rule 2.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

[Rustam]

Hi All,

I have a question regarding a traffic ticket I received out of State. I live in Oregon but got a ticker about 3 hours away in Washington from a State Trooper for Neglegent Driving. I plan to argue the ticket. The thing was that I was passing a car in a double solid yellow lane. What happened was that A passing lane started on my side and a car from the slow lane cut me off and got into the fast lane and continued at 50mph. He hit is brakes so I swerved and passed him in the oncomming lane. Of course I checked that there was no oncomming traffic and it was a long straight road. The cop was really pisses, saying I could kill someone, when in reality I was more aware of my surroundings than the other cars around me. I also think he didn't see the car in front of me cut me off in the fast lane because of his position relative to the onciomming traffic. He said this was the most neglagent driving he's seen in his career, which I find hard to believe. I found a couple of discrepancies on the ticket, such as my eye color and the expiration date of my drivers license. Could these tecnicalitie be grounds for dismissal? All it says on teh ticket is neglegent driving, nothing else. This was also a state trooper in Port Angeles, Washington, which is 3 hours from Portland. Being a state trooper I was wondering If I can request a court hearing in Vancouver Washington, which is 15 minutes from me and 3 hours from him.
I don't make a habbit of driving neglagently and have nothing on my driving record, this being the first thing. I would have my hobby (driving) to be the cause of harm to someone. Thanks for any input.

He hit his brakes causing you to swerve... as soon as you say "i checked for oncoming traffic before passing him" the judge will stop listening to you - if you had enough time to check for oncoming traffic then you had enough time to step on the brakes to avoid the accident within your lane. On contrary, if the situation was so extreme, you would not be able to simply "check for oncoming traffic"...

From what you tell here it seems you could avoid the accident by simply stepping on the brakes ( hard(er) )...

Did you check for oncoming traffic or did you know (see) all along that there was no traffic in the oncoming lane before you got cut off which gave you a margin to avoid an accident ? - that is the key point

[Rustam]

I found something interesting on the Washington State Legislature page. Read #3 below:

(1) A hearing held for the purpose of contesting the determination that an infraction has been committed shall be without a jury.

(2) The court may consider the notice of traffic infraction and any other written report made under oath submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was the basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at the hearing. The person named in the notice may subpoena witnesses, including the officer, and has the right to present evidence and examine witnesses present in court.

(3) The burden of proof is upon the state to establish the commission of the infraction by a preponderance of the evidence.

(4) After consideration of the evidence and argument the court shall determine whether the infraction was committed. Where it has not been established that the infraction was committed an order dismissing the notice shall be entered in the court's records. Where it has been established that the infraction was committed an appropriate order shall be entered in the court's records. A record of the court's determination and order shall be furnished to the department in accordance with RCW 46.20.270 as now or hereafter amended.

(5) An appeal from the court's determination or order shall be to the superior court. The decision of the superior court is subject only to discretionary review pursuant to Rule 2.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

essentially #3 means nothing positive to you... the "evidence" may be considered the words of the trooper - if the judge desides that the state has provided the evidence in the form of his story

[93-525i]

I koew there was nothing in that lane prior to swerving, I mean you constantly observe your surrounding when driving so you should know.

[Traian]

A few tips:

- ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS make a trial date and contest your ticket. At most you will waste your time, but that is a very remote possibility. Most likely you'll be eligible for some sort of reduced charge and fine, sometimes without even testifying.

- Don't go to court expecting the cop will not show up. He gets paid overtime to do his part (at least here in Ontario), so most likely he will be there to line his pockets with that little bit extra.

- Don't put too much importance into minor technicalities. If you mention a small error (such as wrong model year, eye colour, address, etc...), the judge will probably just take your ticket, change the wrong information, and continue with the trial.

- Most difficult one: Try to shed doubt on the officer's testimony (ie. the quality of the equipment and his training to use it (not applicable here), lighting conditions, traffic conditions, line of sight, etc...) rather than explaining the reasons for your actions. If you had to cross a double line to save humanity from certain impending doom, the judge would probably thank you for your thoughtfullness, but you will stil have to pay the fine.

[93-525i]

I will contest this ticket. I have studies up on some Washington State laws and it appears that it is legl to do what I did if there is an obstruction in the road. An obstruction is defined as something impeding you form continuing in your direction.
(RCW 46.61.100) - direclty form state legislature website:
(b) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard.

Also it appears the State has to prove me guilty

RCW 46.63.060
(f) A statement that at any hearing to contest the determination the state has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the infraction was committed; and that the person may subpoena witnesses including the officer who issued the notice of infraction.

This combined with the fact that the officer sould not have seen me untill I passed the car shows that he has a very limited line of site since I was in the far lane and he was on the shoulder of the slow lane, facing traffic.

[ryan roopnarine]

sigh


i would have thought this thread would have died by now.

if you are thinking about contesting this without a lawyer, and it is in less than a month/month and a half, don't bother, unless you know the judge will force you to take traffic school if you do.

number 2 of your research is a platitude. its a PLATITUDE. don't expect anything to come of it. the "assurance" of this is derived from the operation of a criminal court. i can only think of 3 states off of the top of my head in which a traffic infraction is a criminal matter (for mundane crap). most others it is a civil or administrative trial, ie, you don't have the right to avoid self incrimination, the judge can compell you to speak.

there's only one bit of research you need to do, but i am unsure if you have done it yet.

get a bigass piece of paper or a posterboard. go to the washington state statutes index. find the SPECIFIC statute listed on your ticket. write it out, consider it for a bit. (if, in the unlikely case that the statue your reading sounds absolutely nothing like what the trooper pulled you over for, congratulations, you've found the one ironclad loophole that will get you out of a ticket (unlike the time or place mistakes you suggested). now, write it out AGAIN onto the big piece of paper. consider the exact wording in the statute as you would a line from shakespeare that you don't fully understand. determine where the "seperate thoughts" occur in the sentences, insert markers inbetween these thoughts. now, go through these thoughts. put a slash through each "thought" you are certain the trooper will be unable to prove. if you've found only one slash, congratulations, you are innocent of the charges leveled against you. if you've found more than one, that's good too. this is the ONLY way that you will use ANY of the statutes you find to your advantage. mentioning to the judge that you did what the trooper alleges you did (swerving) makes you guilty of the original charge, but leaves it up to the judge to let you off.

i've never had a judge take a law enforcement official's word over my own. every single instance in which i've taken a ticket to court, with the law enforcement official notified multiple times (all of the time by subpoena written by myself), i've won. i 've gotten pulled over about once every 2 months for the past year and a half. i have zero (0) tickets to show for it. i'm not going to pretend to be alan silverstein or anything, but i think i have the hang of it by now. i've always had the cop's superior officer as well as the judges (good old boy, redneck) involved be mercurial towards me, including when discharging me of any alleged offense. if you have 2 months to prepare, you can probably pull it off. if not, i don't know if i would. up to you, playboy.

[93-525i]

The thing that I do have on my side is that I will not be appearing in court. This will be via a written trial. That means that the officer won't get the overtime to come to court and has to write a defense.

[ryan roopnarine]

well then, if it is written, simply indicate that you will move for a dismissal if the officer does not do what i suggested you do with the posterboard, ie, outline and provide evidence for each part of the statute.

[wingman]

A few tips:

- - Don't go to court expecting the cop will not show up. He gets paid overtime to do his part (at least here in Ontario), so most likely he will be there to line his pockets with that little bit extra.

-
- Most difficult one: Try to shed doubt on the officer's testimony (ie. the quality of the equipment and his training to use it (not applicable here), lighting conditions, traffic conditions, line of sight, etc...) rather than explaining the reasons for your actions. If you had to cross a double line to save humanity from certain impending doom, the judge would probably thank you for your thoughtfullness, but you will stil have to pay the fine.

2 things from this one:

1. Don't think that cops go to court on a whim to get extra money. Most times you are rostered on a normal shift to go to court and you HAVE TO as a legal requirement.

2. Don't ever think that cops are stupid. Cops do this stuff for a living. They develop a very good perception of detail. Speed estimation, road conditions, potential hazards etc etc. Your chances of discrediting a professional are very slight to say the least. Cops prepare briefs of evidence for court all the time. They put extra time and effort to make them water proof. They are trained in giving evidence, know how to control nerves in the witness box and know the correct way to answer questions. The biggest mistake you can make is to go in all cocky thinking you're up against some dumb arse hick cop who wouldn't know anything. I've been up against these type of people in court and they lose big time everytime.

As stated before. Get a lawyer and tell the truth. The court will look after the rest.

[93-525i]

I'm not going to court cocky and I know the police officer is a professional that does this all the time. But I will also not fold just becuase he says I did something when the reason for doing it was a valid one. If cops are allways right there would be no need for courts ;)

[wingman]

I'm not going to court cocky and I know the police officer is a professional that does this all the time. But I will also not fold just becuase he says I did something when the reason for doing it was a valid one. If cops are allways right there would be no need for courts ;)

I was not saying that you would be cocky. I was replying to the previous poster. Just remember that the cop is only part of the judicial system and as you quite rightly say there are courts (right or wrong) to decide ultimately who, if anybody, is at fault.

[wingman]

The thing is that everything that happened was almost instinctive. I would have rear ended the guy would I not have swerved. When I was in the oncomming lane I tried to get out asapso I had to speed up. There were care on my left and the oncomming lane was the only way to avoid the vehicle directly in front of me. This is anything but negligent driving.

Just something further. You state that there were cars on your left. If you guys drive on the right side of the road that would make it that there were oncoming vehicles. You say you were travelling at about 50mph. That's pretty fast (even in an E34) to swerve the vehicle. To get out around a car that was so close that you were about to hit it, you would have to have nearly put full lock on to get around it. Wouldn't it have been safer, and more instinctive to brake?

[ThoreauHD]

Your avoidance of an accident created the possibility of a much worse accident. Ever see the meat that comes out of a head on collision? The policeman and judge have. So have I. This is what you are working with. This is what they are thinking about when you maneuvered out of a rear end collision on a highway, into a double lined oncoming lane. I know you are a careful driver since you don't seem to know how this works.

You do have good intent here. But I don't think you have a snoballs chance in hell of presenting it properly in a court of law. It is NOT a court of justice. It is an antagonistic system called Law. Your action is in a grey area of that Law. And that is where lawyers come in.

Doing this by mail can end up getting you permanently screwed. They can burn you with a 39 cent stamp. And after that point.. The higher court does NOT have to hear your case. Than can tell you to piss off. And the lower court doesn't have to hear you twice- in fact they can't(remnant of criminal double jeopardy).

Just do this right. This isn't a parking or speeding ticket. The case will last about 45 minutes at the most. You just sit there and the lawyer will speak to the judge and the prosecuting attorney and the policeman. They will jerk around back and forth and hopefully your lawyer will mellow the cop's version of the story. At which point the judge will say that what you did was technically wrong, but I'll just dismiss since no harm no foul. Pay the court fees and get the fuk out.

The other way it can go is a twenty-something guy trying to teach a prosecuting attorney and judge, 20 years on the bench, law. Oh, and the policeman wants you off the street before you turn his wife into a head-on statistic. No mail order crap. No representing yourself. You have alot going for you in that you weren't drunk, you have a slight excuse, you have a semi-witness(fiance's/lovers don't really carry weight), and you have a pretty clean record beforehand. That's all good, but it will not help you unless it is presented properly with a bouquet of roses in the fashion of a lawyer. You'll be yelling touchdown while everyone else is playing baseball. You don't want to go there. Good luck. You'll be alright.

[Traian]

wingman: I was not thinking of cops being stupid or implying that that is the right mindset. What I was trying to get across was quite simply that giving an excuse for an illegal action, from what I have seen, doesn't get you very far (apart from maybe sympathy) and the only way you can win outright is if you manage to dispute the charge successfully, and the only way to do this is to cast some doubt on the credibility/ability of the police officer. I made no comment as to the ease or difficulty of this, and I still don't. As for the first point, again, the main thing I was trying to get out of that was that expecting the police officer to not show up is a bad way to go about it. The whole bit about lining their pockets and such was just part of my bias against traffic cops. Sorry. It's mainly only Canadian ones anyway!

[clhorton]

I got in a wreck a while back while trying to avoid hitting someone that ran in front of me my brakes locked and i hit another car in front of me. I had to take full resposibility for it. 10,000 dollars worth damn bastard I hit from behind got that from his insurance and he didnt even have any damage or injuries bastards. Yeah dude I know the law sucks a lot of the times, but thats the way it works

[wingman]

wingman: I was not thinking of cops being stupid or implying that that is the right mindset. What I was trying to get across was quite simply that giving an excuse for an illegal action, from what I have seen, doesn't get you very far (apart from maybe sympathy) and the only way you can win outright is if you manage to dispute the charge successfully, and the only way to do this is to cast some doubt on the credibility/ability of the police officer. I made no comment as to the ease or difficulty of this, and I still don't. As for the first point, again, the main thing I was trying to get out of that was that expecting the police officer to not show up is a bad way to go about it. The whole bit about lining their pockets and such was just part of my bias against traffic cops. Sorry. It's mainly only Canadian ones anyway!

I take your point but I fail to see why you would hate traffic cops. These guys are out there dealing with the blood and the guts, pulling mangled kids out of crashed cars, working raining freezing nights getting drunk/dangerous drivers off the roads, delivering death notices to parents of 18 yr old kids or to families killed by the idiots and most of all dealing with a public that hates them because they give tickets to people who do the wrong thing. Yes I'm biased and yes I know all this stuff first hand because I've done it and I'm proud about the work I did when I was with traffic. There are some dickhead cops out there and ,heaven forbid, some even have power trips. These guys are few and far between. Most are like me with a wife and kids and they ALL love cars and driving just like every member of this board. We've kind of hijacked this thread haven't we.

[93-525i]

Thoreau - I don't disagree with you at all in that the cop is there for a reason and I have great respect for what they do, in fact I was a signature away from becoming a police officer in my city. I'm only saying that he didn't see the whole thing. I don't mind getting a ticket for illegal passing but do mind a negligent driving. And yes, from what he saw I would do the same thing in his position.

[Rustam]

Thoreau - I don't disagree with you at all in that the cop is there for a reason and I have great respect for what they do, in fact I was a signature away from becoming a police officer in my city. I'm only saying that he didn't see the whole thing. I don't mind getting a ticket for illegal passing but do mind a negligent driving. And yes, from what he saw I would do the same thing in his position.

hey , can we see a sketch of what happened exactly - specifically where was that cop at the point of your passing the other car?