REAL Court Experiences

[Suf Daddy]

Please don't continue this bantering on a sticky thread.

Otherwise, I'll ask the admins to lock or edit this thread.
-Suf Daddy

[CapeCodPoliceOfficer]

Its not bantering daddy, the truth always hurts.

[SmaartAasSaabr]

Originally Posted by CapeCodPoliceOfficer

Its not bantering daddy, the truth always hurts.

No, it's bantering... that would be a rather light way of saying it... keep it constructive.

[Suf Daddy]

This will be my last comment on this "sticky" topic.

The sticky section is for information to assist others in preparing their case no matter how they represent themselves.

Some info is more factual than others. But when its a free forum, sometimes you get what you pay for.

CCPO, the courts afford the ability for a Defendant to represent themselves and their case. While you may wring your hands and relish the opportunity to faces these people in court, be aware that even a civil case has rules and guidelines to follow outside of the "preponderance of the evidence", from your post on this thread:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=20717

(I see that you've clarified your initial response on that thread, so we now know that you'll ignore misdirected requests and the like)

Two things can happen:
You can have the best case and lose, or the worst case and win.......

If anyone wants to talk about anything else, please start a new thread.

Calmly presented -Suf Daddy

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Suf Daddy

This will be my last comment on this "sticky" topic.

The sticky section is for information to assist others in preparing their case no matter how they represent themselves.

Some info is more factual than others. But when its a free forum, sometimes you get what you pay for.

CCPO, the courts afford the ability for a Defendant to represent themselves and their case. While you may wring your hands and relish the opportunity to faces these people in court, be aware that even a civil case has rules and guidelines to follow outside of the "preponderance of the evidence", from your post on this thread:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=20717

(I see that you've clarified your initial response on that thread, so we now know that you'll ignore misdirected requests and the like)

Two things can happen:
You can have the best case and lose, or the worst case and win.......

If anyone wants to talk about anything else, please start a new thread.

Calmly presented -Suf Daddy

Nice show Lucky and well said Sufdaddy.. I like your objectivity..

8) ELVIS

[Lucky225]

Yea, I have been checking the forums on and off and didn't notice that guy was bantering me. First of all, I'm not sure about arkansas(where the court trial took place) or other states, but INTENTIONALLY following a targeted vehicle is covered under stalking laws, you can't intentionally follow someone who does not want you following them. Secondly, just because I used the phrase probable cause does not mean I was refering to the 4th amendment. Thirdly, the officer stopped me for no reason, there wasn't even any 'reasonable suspicion' to pull me over, and the officer pretty much incriminated himself by testifying he saw me spin my tires on one street and then testifying the route we took to my house we didn't even travel on that street. But anyways it doesn't matter much to me, I've won several court cases, I didn't have any sleep that day and now I'm out of state with a clean license

Originally Posted by Elvis

Nice show Lucky and well said Sufdaddy.. I like your objectivity..

8) ELVIS

[Z1NONLY]

This is the only ticket I have ever fought because this is the only time I was not guilty of the offence for which I was ticketed.

After trailing a car, that was doing 35 in a 45, for almost 3 miles of "no passing" zone, I came to section of road that was legal for passing and passed said car.

Just as I pulled out to pass, a FHP car rounded the curve; about 200 yards back, traveling in the same direction as I. After I completed the pass, I noticed he was closing on my position at a high rate of speed. He passed the slow car, got behind me and turned on his lights to pull me over.

When he told me that he pulled me over for passing in a no passing zone I was shocked. (He said I pulled out about a couple car lengths before the passing zone) I noticed he had a camera mounted in his car and asked if he would just review the tape and clear this up. He said he had no playback ability in his car and gave me a ticket.

To make a long story short, I got a copy of the tape and it didn't start until both of our cars were parked on the side of the road. (The officer said the tape doesn't start until he turns on his lights.)

There were only two things I was going to be able to prove from the tape;

1) I pulled over immediately after he turned on his lights. (Between the time he turned on his lights and the moment the tape actually started recording)

2) He pulled me over a long way from where the alleged infraction took place. (I intended to use this fact to show that he was too far away from the alleged infraction to make the call, and that's why it took him so long to pull me over)

When my day in court finally came, I had to go down one floor and get a VHS player from one of their admin offices. Everyone seemed surprised at my request. (I got the VHS/TV cart before any of the trials started.)

I never had to use the tape.

I used an aerial photo of the area, photos I took myself, and a map to show the distance between where the alleged infraction took place and where he actually stopped me.

He didn't challenge any of the info.

When I asked why he took so long to pull me over, his answer sealed my victory.

(Quoting from memory here)

"I mentally marked the location you pulled out and, once I got up to that spot and verified that you pulled out to soon, then I initiated the stop."

I turned to the judge and said that while this may sound like an attempt at being through, it also proves that the officer was not "sure" an infraction had taken place when I pulled out. (Because he was too far back) If he wasn't certain when I executed my pass, he could not then "mentally mark" the spot in question with certainty.

The Judge looked at my VHS tape sitting on the table and asked if I had any further evidence to present. Feeling that I had made a pretty good case, I said, "I'm done if he's done"

He said he had nothing to add, and I rested my case.

The judge gave me a "judicial warning". I wasn't sure what this meant, but I sensed it was a win and asked no questions. But I promptly went across the street to a law firm that was one of our clients at the time and asked a Lawyer there, that remembered me from a recent service call, what it meant.

She said, "You won." (No points, no conviction of any infraction)

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

This is the only ticket I have ever fought because this is the only time I was not guilty of the offence for which I was ticketed.

After trailing a car, that was doing 35 in a 45, for almost 3 miles of "no passing" zone, I came to section of road that was legal for passing and passed said car.

Just as I pulled out to pass, a FHP car rounded the curve; about 200 yards back, traveling in the same direction as I. After I completed the pass, I noticed he was closing on my position at a high rate of speed. He passed the slow car, got behind me and turned on his lights to pull me over.

When he told me that he pulled me over for passing in a no passing zone I was shocked. (He said I pulled out about a couple car lengths before the passing zone) I noticed he had a camera mounted in his car and asked if he would just review the tape and clear this up. He said he had no playback ability in his car and gave me a ticket.

To make a long story short, I got a copy of the tape and it didn't start until both of our cars were parked on the side of the road. (The officer said the tape doesn't start until he turns on his lights.)

There were only two things I was going to be able to prove from the tape;

1) I pulled over immediately after he turned on his lights. (Between the time he turned on his lights and the moment the tape actually started recording)

2) He pulled me over a long way from where the alleged infraction took place. (I intended to use this fact to show that he was too far away from the alleged infraction to make the call, and that's why it took him so long to pull me over)

When my day in court finally came, I had to go down one floor and get a VHS player from one of their admin offices. Everyone seemed surprised at my request. (I got the VHS/TV cart before any of the trials started.)

I never had to use the tape.

I used an aerial photo of the area, photos I took myself, and a map to show the distance between where the alleged infraction took place and where he actually stopped me.

He didn't challenge any of the info.

When I asked why he took so long to pull me over, his answer sealed my victory.

(Quoting from memory here)

"I mentally marked the location you pulled out and, once I got up to that spot and verified that you pulled out to soon, then I initiated the stop."

I turned to the judge and said that while this may sound like an attempt at being through, it also proves that the officer was not "sure" an infraction had taken place when I pulled out. (Because he was too far back) If he wasn't certain when I executed my pass, he could not then "mentally mark" the spot in question with certainty.

The Judge looked at my VHS tape sitting on the table and asked if I had any further evidence to present. Feeling that I had made a pretty good case, I said, "I'm done if he's done"

He said he had nothing to add, and I rested my case.

The judge gave me a "judicial warning". I wasn't sure what this meant, but I sensed it was a win and asked no questions. But I promptly went across the street to a law firm that was one of our clients at the time and asked a Lawyer there, that remembered me from a recent service call, what it meant.

She said, "You won." (No points, no conviction of any infraction)

Job well done.. Sometimes we all make mistakes..I am glad the system works in most cases, not all..but most.. good points and utilization of "WE THE PEOPLE" rules of engagement. As a retired LEO and veteran I admire people who are right and stand up for the truth whether they disagree with the government or not.. Its your right.. Just don't confuse the "stupid law" for those about to rock or jump on the "ya he won campaign"...."When you are wrong and caught...don't be stupid" ..take it like a man..or woman.."

ELVIS

[sbfuller2]

so i went to court yesterday for my ticket. here is how it went.

checked in 30 minutes early, saw the cop that wrote the ticket show up about 15 minutes later. that cop was called by an off duty cop that saw me "speeding" and was told to write me a ticket for 80 in a 60 from 18 miles previous. The first person to call my name i THOUGHT was just another person who worked for the court... i later find out it was the prosecutor. she informed me of my options: 1) be found guilty and pay the fine of $265, court fees of $100, and a processing fee of $35 and she also informed me that she had all the evidence needed to prosecute me and that the cop was there to testify against me. 2) deferred ajudication, pay $200 and not get a ticket for 90 days in houston and it does not go on my record. 3) reset for a trial by jury. Based on those options, my friend that was cited for the same offense went with #2... i was called up after my friend and realized that the prosecutor did not inform either of us of the 4th option, being found not guilty. I asked the prosecutor (before i knew the role she was fulfilling) how they had all the evidence if the witnessing officer wasn't there; she told me, "i cannot discuss evidence with you at this time." I asked why. (At this point i thought she was an assistant to the judge or something) she then says, "i am the prosecutor and cannot discuss evidence until it is called for by the judge. Me---> :shock: SHE IS MY ENEMY HERE!!! once i realized that I called her bluff on having evidence against me due to the witnessing officer not even being there. she asked me to go back and have a seat and the judge would hear the case. the first cop went up and told the judge what happened, she called me to the stand to inform me that my ticket was being dismissed due to lack of evidence. i didn't even have to say anything!!!!

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by sbfuller2

so i went to court yesterday for my ticket. here is how it went.

checked in 30 minutes early, saw the cop that wrote the ticket show up about 15 minutes later. that cop was called by an off duty cop that saw me "speeding" and was told to write me a ticket for 80 in a 60 from 18 miles previous. The first person to call my name i THOUGHT was just another person who worked for the court... i later find out it was the prosecutor. she informed me of my options: 1) be found guilty and pay the fine of $265, court fees of $100, and a processing fee of $35 and she also informed me that she had all the evidence needed to prosecute me and that the cop was there to testify against me. 2) deferred ajudication, pay $200 and not get a ticket for 90 days in houston and it does not go on my record. 3) reset for a trial by jury. Based on those options, my friend that was cited for the same offense went with #2... i was called up after my friend and realized that the prosecutor did not inform either of us of the 4th option, being found not guilty. I asked the prosecutor (before i knew the role she was fulfilling) how they had all the evidence if the witnessing officer wasn't there; she told me, "i cannot discuss evidence with you at this time." I asked why. (At this point i thought she was an assistant to the judge or something) she then says, "i am the prosecutor and cannot discuss evidence until it is called for by the judge. Me---> :shock: SHE IS MY ENEMY HERE!!! once i realized that I called her bluff on having evidence against me due to the witnessing officer not even being there. she asked me to go back and have a seat and the judge would hear the case. the first cop went up and told the judge what happened, she called me to the stand to inform me that my ticket was being dismissed due to lack of evidence. i didn't even have to say anything!!!!

Prosecutors are not always that devious and should have explained first and foremost that she was the prosecutor..and the option to plead not guilty...Nice show..YOU earned that one..ELVIS