So I guess my wagon isnt a sleeper

[demo243]

unfortunately everything is spelled correctly so looks like that wont work, im just hopping the prosecutor will give me a deal

 

I know it was wrong and i was going to fast, it just bothers me cause i wasn't really endangering anyone i was going with traffic and at the time trying to get around trucks in the right lane because i hate sitting next to em.

 

guess i should have gotten the pickup truck i was looking at and lifted it so i couldnt go over 80, although don't think i could give up my lgt, i love it too much

[TSiWRX]

As for the radar detector:

a: cops have no reason to lie about, if it was a radar/laser ticket, your detector is likely faulty or he aimed it at your plate

b: aircraft ticket

 

While there's plenty of reasons for an enforcer to lie - that's a problem with that particular enforcer's personal ethics/morals, and cannot be brought to bear on the situation here.

 

Technically, in terms of the detector not having gone off:

 

(1) If it's LIDAR, it's very well possible that your detector, demo, like nm+ cited, didn't go off simply because the detector did not "see" the LIDAR beam. This is definitely possible, and even the best detector still can be limited in this respect. Given that LIDAR performance on Bel detectors is not their strong point, this adds yet another possibility.

 

(2) If it's RADAR, your detector *should* have gone off, but that's still limited to the enforcer's RADAR device being in-spec/calibration, as well as your detector being the same. Additionally (although unlikely), POP could have been used (and if a ticket was issued via use of POP, then it's also not valid, legally), which your detector well could have missed. Finally, it could've been a "quick trigger" situation, which could also have escaped your detector but is, nevertheless, a valid and practiced enforcement tactic.

 

(3) Your ticket could have been visual-estimation or VASCAR (which is not limited to aerial, as nm+ implied, but can also be done from either a stationary or even moving patrol vehicle), or via other non-RADAR/LIDAR means.

 

A radar/laser detector is just that - it's not a "cop detector." And even their ability to detect RADAR/LIDAR is limited to what they are technically capable of.

[nm]

While there's plenty of reasons for an enforcer to lie - that's a problem with that particular enforcer's personal ethics/morals, and cannot be brought to bear on the situation here.

Even the least moral cop has no reason to lie. Even with strict quotas there's more than enough legit (by which i mean legal) tickets to write. Getting caught lying litterally ends a career (they cannot testify any more). No officer is going to lie about what speed he read on a radar gun for a simple speed. Too much of a risk and it gets him nothing. 9this may not apply to more serious offenses, but in petty traffic, they really don't)

Now, they may operate the decive incorrectly and make incorrectly assert they used it right, but that isn't really a "lie."

(I have lot of experence with this, I've never seen one case where I even remotely doubted that the cop got the read he did. I've doubted tickets bt those have to dow ith poor device setup and calibration, reading the wrong car, etc)

[TSiWRX]

Lying - or choosing not to, is a personal factor, and there's more than one reason why someone may. There's no debate to be had there, some just may not have the moral/ethical standings necessary to not only be a good law enforcer, but as a simple human being.

 

I'm not generalizing this to say that "all cops lie."

 

Far from it, many of my closest friends are law-enforcers or law-enforcement related, and they are among the most morally scrupulous and upstanding individuals I know.

 

Instead, I'm merely saying that we're all human, and that this possibility cannot be excluded, and that there are many reasons why someone may choose to lie.

 

I'm not saying that either this enforcer did - nor that all enforcers do.

 

And this doesn't apply for "petty traffic?" I think that's pretty idealistic......just a very recent example, and only from our select Scooby community:

 

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1701611

 

Again, I don't want *anyone* to take this as a generalization of any type.

 

Instead, it should simply be pointed out that this possibility does exist, and is not out of the realm of what may have happened, in the less-than-perfect real world that we live in.

 

The possibility exists, and that's why I put it out there.

 

And this ( the above debate/discussion ) is also the reason why I choose simply to focus on the technical aspects of what's possible.

[nm]

Lying - or choosing not to, is a personal factor, and there's more than one reason why someone may. There's no debate to be had there, some just may not have the moral/ethical standings necessary to not only be a good law enforcer, but as a simple human being.

 

I'm not generalizing this to say that "all cops lie."

 

Far from it, many of my closest friends are law-enforcers or law-enforcement related, and they are among the most morally scrupulous and upstanding individuals I know.

 

Instead, I'm merely saying that we're all human, and that this possibility cannot be excluded, and that there are many reasons why someone may choose to lie.

 

I'm not saying that either this enforcer did - nor that all enforcers do.

 

And this doesn't apply for "petty traffic?" I think that's pretty idealistic......just a very recent example, and only from our select Scooby community:

 

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1701611

 

Again, I don't want *anyone* to take this as a generalization of any type.

 

Instead, it should simply be pointed out that this possibility does exist, and is not out of the realm of what may have happened, in the less-than-perfect real world that we live in.

 

The possibility exists, and that's why I put it out there.

 

And this ( the above debate/discussion ) is also the reason why I choose simply to focus on the technical aspects of what's possible.

That's somewhat different, that's not exactly the case of a cop running a speed trap. (And I suspect there's some exaggeration on both sides of that story)

[TSiWRX]

^ True, it's not a case in which the enforcer was running the trap, but it definitely shows a case of less-than-perfect morals.

 

And I suspect that the story would confirm much more on the side of our fellow Scooby enthusiast...after all, he's posted enough details of the locale as well as of the specific individuals involved that anyone could have "burned him" in a case of total intraw3b pwnage, had the story been embellished.

 

The point of the matter is that one simply cannot make an outright sweeping statement about the morals/ethics of *any* profession. Doctors take an oath, too, and a life-and-death one, at that....and look how many run afoul of that, right?

 

This is something that's going to depend on the specific person.

 

It's a simple possibility that cannot be denied nor ignored.

 

It's a possibility, that, being out of our control, I chose simply not to debate, but to nevertheless mention, for it is still within the realm of real-world possibility. That's all.

[nm]

^ True, it's not a case in which the enforcer was running the trap, but it definitely shows a case of less-than-perfect morals.

I'm not talking about morals. In a standard speed trap, without extenuating circumstances, it is just so unlikely as to be a pointless defense.

[TSiWRX]

^ And I'm not debating this based on a "defense" for the person cited.

 

In my eyes, it's both pointless for the enforcer to lie (when he/she could simply say that their visual estimate of the vehicle's speed was far in excess, or, alternatively, could just as easily "doctor" their chosen speed-detection devices' reading so as to validate their "lie"), as well as would be a non-defensible accusation of the person cited to make.

 

I'm just stating that the possibility exists, in the real world, where we do not know anyone's motives - and simply cannot be ignored.

 

It comes down to simple logic.

 

Can anyone here say that this enforcer did or did not lie?

 

No.

 

Therefore, is it possible?

 

Yes.

[Garandman]

I was driving home from school today (University of Rhode Island) heading into CT and not 2 or 3 exits into CT got pulled over by a state trooper. Right around exit 91 or so coming down the big hill there on 95 south. Mind you I was going a bit fast but wasn't blowing by traffic or anything. He started pulling out before I even got to him so I thought he was going to get the people in front of me, until he waved me over. Long story short heads up if your going down that hill they may be there and you may end up with a $300 ticket. I'm gonna fight it but its a hassle. any hints on fighting it would be appreciated, as it is my first speeding ticket. And I know we all think our legacy's are sleepers but I guess my bone stock SWP wagon wasn't enough.

Fill out your profile!

 

Can someone who lives in CT and knows the process there please comment?

 

In MA you first go before a Magistrate. Any sort of BS excuse usually gets you nowhere. Saying you were sorry and that the ticket will cause you a hardship is a lot more successful approach. But that's in MA: YMMV.

[demo243]

Thats what i think my approach is gonna be, go say im sorry i know it was wrong i know i have to pay for something but im a college student working my way though college, and i cant afford it is there any way we can work out a deal. its not that i cant afford the ticket its the insurance prices i cant, i guess you could say i learned my lesson already

[ean611]

delete. wrong thread, sorry

[CooCoo]

I went to a defensive driving course and they took away the points and lowered the fee if I showed proof that I went. They offer school on Saturdays in between 3-5 hours long. Don't know if you want to go through all that, but it might be worth it to you. Since it's your first, you might get an even better deal because it showing regret and you are taking steps to Prevent future tix ( Yeah right!! haha). Just a thought. Good Luck

[robert]

I tried the "im sorry and cant afford the insurance increase" method and got flamed. Judge told me next time to go to traffic school instead of fighting the ticket if i know im guilty. Check the fine print, you probably threw away your opportunity of going to traffic school when you opted to go to court.

[Garandman]

I tried the "im sorry and cant afford the insurance increase" method and got flamed. Judge told me next time to go to traffic school instead of fighting the ticket if i know im guilty. Check the fine print, you probably threw away your opportunity of going to traffic school when you opted to go to court.

In CT?

[ClimberDHexMods]

Good call on not pleading guilty. When I got my "73 in a 40, with hard proof" ticket dropped from $330 to $50 and no points, I achieved that by going on google and searching for a while until I found a site specific to MA speeding ticket law that had everything. Do so, and you will uncover a mountain of objective information that will help you defend yourself. Even if you plead not guilty on your form, you will still be asked how you plead when you go in for the court date, so it really doesn't matter anyways. Also, one thing that helped me a lot was changing the date of my ticket to a different day that the officer was not addressing all his appeals. Anyways, research and you will find what you are looking for. It's surprisingly easy to get out of a ticket once you learn the ropes.

[Garandman]

Good call on not pleading guilty. When I got my "73 in a 40, with hard proof" ticket dropped from $330 to $50 and no points, I achieved that by going on google and searching for a while until I found a site specific to MA speeding ticket law that had everything. Do so, and you will uncover a mountain of objective information that will help you defend yourself. Even if you plead not guilty on your form, you will still be asked how you plead when you go in for the court date, so it really doesn't matter anyways. Also, one thing that helped me a lot was changing the date of my ticket to a different day that the officer was not addressing all his appeals. Anyways, research and you will find what you are looking for. It's surprisingly easy to get out of a ticket once you learn the ropes.

 

What site is that?

 

If you were allowed to change the date of the hearing, you had unusual forbearance from the Clerk.

 

In MA you definitely want to take it up with the Magistrate, they're a lot more willing to let go than the Judge. But no one has identified the process CT uses.

 

Did find these gems at: http://www.speedingticketdefense.com/pages/massachusetts_speeding.html

 

October 2008 Board of Appeal a 50-year-old person from China flunks her fourth state police competency exam (road test) after almost causing an accident on Route 128 by driving sideways on the highway. She is precluded from further testing. On appeal the decision is reversed and further test testing is allowed upon motion of attorney Nathan

 

November 2008 Westborough District court a 39 year old Massachusetts man represented himself at the magistrate hearing, and call the magistrate a jerk when he was found responsible. Over our objections we were retained for the judges review, and representation continues.

 

June 2001 Woburn District Court. A Massachusetts man is cited twice by the same Mass. State Police trooper for speeding on Rt. 93, once at 90mph and once at 100mph on diverse dates. Not responsible, both matters, at the clerk's hearing.

 

July 2001 Nantucket District Court. Attorney Nathan, the featured lawyer of speedingticketdefense.com is cited for 58 in a 45 zone by the State Police on Milestone road in Nantucket and is found not responsible at the magistrate hearing. He was field sobriety tested for OUI and passed all tests. He did not tell the trooper he was a lawyer.

 

October, 2000 Speeding Ticket/criminal: Defendant (21 years old, former Miss Kentucky) charged in the Boston Municipal court with leaving the scene after causing property damage & operating while her Kentucky license was suspended for non-payment of tickets. The defendant was entering the Callahan Tunnel and rear-ended a Massachusetts State Police sergeant's unmarked cruiser. The criminal complaint issued within hours of the defendant leaving without making herself known. Atty Nathan persuaded the court that the sergeant was at fault for stopping and the charges were dismissed upon payment of $100 court costs.

[ClimberDHexMods]

What site is that?

 

 

I still kick myself for not saving it. It was hard to find because it has a very low search ranking on Google organic search.

 

If you were allowed to change the date of the hearing, you had unusual forbearance from the Clerk.

 

In MA you definitely want to take it up with the Magistrate, they're a lot more willing to let go than the Judge. But no one has identified the process CT uses.

 

Not true on changing the court date. MA allows one change (if you at least can come up with a good reason). I don't know about CT.

 

Magistrates can indeed be flexible people.

[Eblues70]

I will look into the laws in CT. I drive from Chester to Groton everday for work (about 40 miles interstate), the police set in the same place all the time. The "majority" of the time the people one the side of the road with pretty lights in the rear view are Mass, NY, and Jersey. The prime places for police are at the borders , thats true, but watch out for bridges and overpasses with onramps at the other side. Not tried and true just observation...and knock on wood no tickets.

[sschmelcke]

well ive lived in ct for 29 years and have gotten loads of tickets. there are no points in ct. after 3 moving violations you go to drivers retraining course(ive been there 5 times). if you get one more moving violation within a year of class you need to retake the class again. if you plead not guilty they send you a court date notice. you dont see a judge and the cop does not show up. you wait in line to speak with someone at the court house. they read you your ticket and say ok now whats your side of the story. ive never had a ticket dropped but the price has always been reduced and it is always reported to your insurance company for the original infraction even if the fine gets lowered. good luck