If you lose your case, do they stick you with the court costs? I believe they do in TN.
I was pulled over and ticketed for not having my seatbelt on in a large parking lot shared by several big box stores. I decided to fight it, because the law is worded “a seatbelt must be worn when operating a vehicle on the highway” The judge ruled in my favor, but it dawned on me that the law really didn’t matter. The judge just did whatever he felt like doing. And that’s the state of our justice system. Everything is an income stream

They can of course. Though on some of mine they have simply dismissed the ticket just to get rid of me on minor things. That happened on the parking ticket case I mentioned. The prosecutor finally pulled me aside and asked why I was doing this over a parking ticket. I replied "Because I despise you people and I'm going to use every one of your own rules against you to make this as drawn-out as possible." He dropped the case. On another one that was not a moving violation either, the judge dropped court costs and gave me a look that said, "Take this deal and you really don't want to appeal this." So I paid the $10 or $15 (it was like 30 years ago), satisfied that they had spent more than that to collect it. (What was pretty funny is my dad got a ticket in the same jurisdiction a couple of years later and went to court over it. He got the same judge and due to the same last name the judge asked if he knew me!)

Don't get the impression I'm constantly doing this, I very rarely get tickets and have not had a moving violation in decades. For me it's not just about the money though, and you are correct that it doesn't matter what the law says. The judge is God in his or her courtroom.

I enjoy costing the taxpayers more money and congesting the court system. It's a hobby of mine and I don't consider it frivolous. Any time I'm accused of a crime even if it's a parking ticket I take it to the max. All I do is use their own rules. If they don't want those rules followed they should not have them. I'm completely within my rights to demand all manner of pertinent information via discovery for that parking ticket. It's written into the law and the court rules as well as case law. If they don't like it, well that's just tough.

Not to mention that it's not as simple as obeying traffic laws, you can easily be targeted mistakenly for something that someone else has done.

@chucktobias This attitude is the reason the court system is broken. You are punishing other law abiding citizens simply for your own convenience which is selfish and wrong.

Mr. mahirmahboob was disputing simply to evade punishment. I wasn't talking at all about wrongful citations. That's another matter entirely.

We don't know what he did or if he actually did what he was accused of. As far as my own actions in court, I am simply following the rules which I am perfectly entitled to do. At no time have I been threatened with contempt of court and that is because I am following the rules as they are written. If you don't like me and others like me doing that then have the rules changed. (I personally would like to see everyone challenge every ticket to the full extent permitted by law.)

@chucktobias I fully understand that you're gaming the system. A system that will NEVER be perfect. So is your motivation simply to be a menace and pain in the ass, or is it actually just so that you can get away with breaking the law?
That's like stealing buggies from the store, and then saying it's the store's fault because they didn't catch you, or they can't prove you took them. Kind of immature isn't it? You are not following the rules the moment you broke the traffic laws.

I'm simply following the rules to defend myself against accusations of a crime. Just because I am accused of breaking the law does not mean that I have actually done so. Is it your position that I am not entitled to defend myself to the best of my ability within the law? As I said if you don't like the rules that permit me to do what I am legally entitled to do in challenging tickets, have the rules changed.

@chucktobias you are just repeating yourself now. You have no argument and I don't think you actually believe what you're saying. You know very well I'm talking about when you're guilty. You said you "always fight a ticket". That means you fight it even when you're guilty, and your language suggests that you are guilty and fighting it out of spite. Obviously if you're innocent of an accusation you should fight it, but that's not the subject of discussion here.
Rules do not define our morality or how we should act, and I think that deep down you believe this because, as you said, you haven't had a violation in decades.

If I am repeating myself it is because you keep coming back with the same arguments which are without foundation or merit. Even a guilty person has a right to a defense in the United States. It is the fundamental basis of our legal system. Any time government accuses me of a crime I am going to defend myself to the best of my ability, including retaining counsel if needed, and it is the absolute right of any person to do the same regardless of guilt or innocence or the seriousness of the charge.

Yes, you have that right. And I hope that you wield that right in a good honest way @chucktobias. If you knowingly speed or double park, I think you should just pay your tickets. This rebelling won't accomplish anything.

Of course I don't deliberately do those things. In the case of the parking ticket I mentioned, it was a situation where a cop would come by and chalk you tire, then come back later and use his watch to determine if you were parked overtime.

In this case it was a question of a few minutes and there was good reason to question the accuracy of the ticket. So studying the situation, it turned out the municipality to prove its case would have to provide in discovery the calibration and maintenance records of the cop's watch over a considerable period of time, and there was also the issue that chalking tires could be seen as tanatamount to temporary seizure of private property without a warrant for evidentiary testing.

After several court appearances where they saw I wasn't going to let it go and possibly would appeal a guilty decision, which could potentially upset the casual scheme they were using to determine overtime parking, they simply didn't want to deal with it and dropped the charge.

well that's very clever @chucktobias. Judges must love you.
how is chalking tires considered seizure if he didn't take your vehicle away or deny you access to it. Do you really need a warrant to chalk tires? It's pretty common practice here.

I see where you're going with this. I suppose that in a way you're keeping cops honest, which I can support.

I generally don't get caught for traffic violations, but once I did dispute a ticket once for running a yellow, which I felt was unfair. I could not have stopped safely. It was a rookie cop. At the court, he was completely unaware of why he was summoned. He had no notes, nothing. The judge was very upset with him, threw out the case, and chastised the cop for wasting everybody's time. His buddies were also outside the courtroom before going in, and they were trying to intimidate and dig information out of me.

You are certainly denied access to your vehicle during the time the chalking is taking place, and they are doing something physical with your property without a warrant or even probable cause. If they can do that what else can they do? Just because something is common practice that does not make it legal. (Look up the reasons for the Miranda warning. It has to do with what was "common practice" by many police departments.) The chalking thing is a technical issue that would probably only be resolved as case law if someone challenged it and it was resolved at the appellate level one way or the other. That one was actually suggested by the attorney I was working with at the time so I threw it against the wall to see if it would stick. As it happens it never got to the point of seeing where it would go.

@chucktobias
how were you denied access? Did he try to stop you from getting in the car?
How is chalking a tire different from me putting putting a note on your door? Or putting a ticket under your wiper. Are those illegal too?

also, in your court appearance, if that judge had asked you directly "did you overpark?", what would you have answered?

For one thing you cannot simply drive off while the cop is chalking your tire. Depending on the setting you may not even be able to get into your car, albeit for a short period of time. These are the kind of technical details that would likely be determined by case law. Putting a ticket under a wiper, for example, is different in that the property is not being used for evidentiary testing. How much of a difference would that make? I have no idea. If there are any lawyers in the peanut gallery perhaps they can comment. (Bear in mind that particular idea did come from an experienced attorney.)

hmm ... nobody is going is going to go to such extremes to prove that you overparked, or commited some minor traffic offense. It's just not really practical for police or other enforcers. (things like calibrating your watch... its unreasonable). There will always be loopholes. So then what? Should we just stop issuing traffic violations and let chaos ensue on the roads? Or do we let court jesters like you make a mockery of the process, and make everyone dance around? What is your goal?

If cops are going to use instruments to collect evidence to determine if you have broken a law isn't it incumbent on them to maintain and calibrate those instruments? How is that "unreasonable?" How is it being a "court jester" to follow the rules of the court and the rules of evidence and hold those making the accusations to those rules? You yourself discovered in your yellow light case the kind of uncertainty in issuing tickets that can take place.

Sure officers can start calibrating their watches, but persistent lawyers will just find another ridiculous loophole, to the point of absurdity. Where does it end? In your opinion... to what lengths, and expense must the officer go to prove that you overparked? He caught you, and by your own admission his judgement was accurate, so empirically speaking, his method was sufficient. You did not prove that his method produced a false positive.

The police departments should provide calibrated instruments as they need to do with radar guns and breathalyzers. This has already been through the courts in most jurisdictions. In my case I did not and do not at all admit the cop's judgement was accurate and believed there was reasonable basis to question it. His method from a legal standpoint, pursuant to state supreme court case law, was not sufficient at all.

you said " it was a question of a few minutes ". Were you overparked, or not? Was he right?

I was not overparked by my watch, but that is not really relevant. According to state supreme court case law it is the responsibility of the police to use properly calibrated and maintained instruments to collect evidence against citizens. Under the principle of the accused being innocent until proven guilty, which is the underlying basis of our entire legal system whether you are talking about a parking ticket or 1st degree murder, it is incumbent on the police to prove the accuracy of any instruments they have used in order to sustain a conviction. They failed to do so.

I know. But is seems like an arms race.

All I know is if you get a red-light camera ticket alway ask for a “motion to supresss” it means that they can’t use camera footage and only a officer’s testimony would suffice - BUT since there was NO officer involved........ worth a try

I actually read every word of every comment. As someone with immediate family in law enforcement, specifically the traffic division, all I can say is *giant facepalm*. @mountainmanjoe Joe, its bee. a long time since I have said this....but I agree with, literally, every word you said. So much so that I'm not even going to post my own answer to this thread, but just let your posts speak for my opinion as well here. Cheers to you on this one. {blackemo}:hotdrink:

it's an interesting philosophical subject. One that I don't think about or have to deal with very often (fortunately). I'm all for fair trials and burden of proof, and I appreciate Chuck's point that people with authority shouldn't abuse it and need to be very diligent when making accusations. But this "fight the system whether I'm right or wrong" attitude still feels wrong. It conjures uncomfortable memories of OJ Simpson, and the idea that truth is decided by "he who hires the dirtiest lawyer"

I don't deal with it very often either. However I come from the opposite environment that Mod_Man does - where many of the people in my life have been defense attorneys dealing with the dark underbelly of "the system". It's an unpleasant fact that power corrupts.

So that's pretty much it gentlemen, no need to keep flogging this, we have differing views and that is unlikely to change. Time to get back to discussing cars.

I'm not trying to flog it, but you can exit the discussion any time you like. Here's a parting thought from the 18th century which I think highlights your view...

It just seems that we have reached an impasse and are getting way off topic for the forum. But yes, that illustration captures the point precisely. Old Ben was a heck of a lot more eloquent and concise than I am.

It was a welcome detour and I was intrigued by where it led me. I don't see it as an impasse, and in fact I would be curious to hear more about what you have to say on it, but you're right it's off in the weeds for this place.

I worked for a good one years ago as a paralegal, a well-respected criminal lawyer in our state, unfortunately now deceased. When living he could tell hair-raising stories about catching cops lying on the stand, fabrication of incriminating evidence, prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence, and other acts of official malfeasance. Usually people who trust "the system" have not had any significant contact with it. In fact you can frequently tell the good lawyers because they have a healthy disrespect for the the legal system. (The guy I worked for likened dressing up to go into a courtroom to putting on hip boots to wade through a sewer.)

@chucktobias the only way the system CAN work, is if people trust it. If everyone thumbs their nose at it, then it will always be a joke. Laws are only there to punish those who act immorally, like bumpers in a bowling alley. Laws do not DEFINE what is right.

The system is not trustworthy, the corruption runs deep. Traffic courts in particular are run as profit centers. However I am not thumbing my nose at anything. I am simply making use of the rules provided by the system itself - in other words following the law. If you don't like those rules then have them changed.

@chucktobias The system is trustworthy. The people abusing it in bad faith are not trustworthy. You are a pot calling the kettle black, and your hypocritical actions ARE the corruption. You are no better than the GMs and Fords screwing their customers because "the rules lets them do it". Your argument is very circular. How can the system work if everyone says "well he's abusing the spirit of the law, then so can I". And don't forget, the whole thing starts with your UNLAWFUL action of breaking a traffic rule. You forfeit any righteousness the moment you do that.

Sorry, the system is not trustworthy. I have worked as a paralegal for a criminal attorney and have seen it first hand - have you?

I am doing nothing "corrupt". I am simply following the rules set down to protect the accused. Baked into the fabric of the legal system is the concept of the presumption of innocence - something you seem to have forgotten. You are making the assumption that receiving a traffic ticket means automatically that one is guilty of breaking the law and is not entitled to a defense. Maybe that's the way it worked in the old Soviet Union. Not the way it is supposed to work in the United States.

So tells us straight out; is it your position that the mere accusation of a crime makes one guilty of breaking the law? Is it further your position that one is presumed to be guilty due to such accusation and not entitled to defend one's self? It certainly seems that what you are arguing.

No, you know very well that's not my position. I've said multiple times I'm not talking about defending yourself when you didn't break the law.

CORRUPTION: dishonest or fraudulent conduct . By definition, claiming innocence when I know I broke the law is corruption.

This doesn't sound like an innocent person.
"I didn't want to lose points so i gave it to my traffic attorney"
If they were, they would have gone to the court themselves.

You seem to be missing the point that in the United States even persons who have broken the law are entitled to a defense.

of course they are entitled, but we're talking about getting caught speeding here, not a murder trial. Just own up to it. You want to tie up the system ... for what purpose?

But am I guilty? Is the cop's equipment properly calibrated? Is he 100% certain it was my car he was tracking? Was that stop sign placed legally? Etc. There is frequently uncertainty in the issuance of a ticket.

@chucktobias only you know that for sure