Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Businesses Google The Internet

Using Google Maps to Get Out of a Traffic Ticket 817

Posted by timothy from the beating-the-abusive-revenuers dept.
Michael Nguyen writes "Edwin uses Google Maps to prove to the judge his traffic ticket was wrongly issued, saving himself some cash and points on his license. During his testimony, Edwin whips out a notebook, loads up Google Maps and upstages the offending officer with some quick Google Map searches." I wonder if anyone's gotten out of a ticket by showing how inaccurate most speed-check methods can be.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using Google Maps to Get Out of a Traffic Ticket More

Using Google Maps to Get Out of a Traffic Ticket

Comments Filter:

  • Hopfully the guy was inocent. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:20PM (#13119711)
    The problem with small fines like traffic tickets are that you need to prove that you are innocent of the crime vs. having to prove that you are guilty. If more and more people can prove their not guilty then the police will need to provide evidence that you were indeed guilty of the crime. And stop making traffic violations a means to subsidize taxes.
    • That's because in most cases, at least here in CA, you are contesting a moving violation, not a misdemeanor. You can choose to contest it as a misdemeanor, and get all the requisite priveleges that go along with it (I expect that getting booked, printed & phot'd will be part of the process). This will have the consequence of pissing off the judge and the DA to no end, so you'd really better be innocent before heading down this path.

      • Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BorgHunter ( 685876 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:06PM (#13120070)
        You can choose to contest it as a misdemeanor, and get all the requisite priveleges that go along with it

        Rights. Not privileges, rights. It is my right as a citizen of a free country to be considered innocent until proven guilty, to be given a fair and speedy trial, and to not speak until I can talk to my attorney. I am indeed privileged to have these basic human rights (which, sadly, do not exist in some third world lands), but that does not change the fact that they are rights and not privileges. Some may think that I'm being too anal regarding the two words, but I disagree. I think that the moment we begin to think our basic rights "privileges," people's "privileges" will be taken away for this or that. That is not a road I wish to go down.

        • Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by b17bmbr ( 608864 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:28PM (#13120218)
          driving is a privilege not a right. there are certain things we trade to live in a free society, such as unlimited freedoms "I'll wherever, whenever, however" with basic safety. a traffic ticket is not a crime, it is a code violation, that's all. if you get X number of them, you can have your privilege revoked. rights are entirely different. let's take an altogether separate yet related example. (and one I know quite well, as it happened to a friend many years ago.) You own a dry cleaning business, you follow all the rules, laws, etc. A female employee gets pregnant. She can't work around the toxic cleaning solutions. Fine. OSHA comes in and orders the business closed until changes are made, fines them, and orders them to pay temporary lost wages. No crime was committed, they weren't hauled off to jail, nothing. Most environmental regs are such. So too workers' regs. Are we willing to eschew all those? Perhaps. perhaps not.

          We(society) accept traffic cops and their patrolling of the streets to keep us safe. (This is not the same as "law enforcement though.) We must follow traffic laws or else we'll be unable to drive anywhere.

          As for rights, I feel the major problem we have is that everyone feels everythign is a right. And no, aboriton, marriage, and welfare are not rights. That just highlights the problem. We have grown accustomed to thinking everything is a right. Rights are an entirely different idea. Being able to "just do something" is hardly a right. I just can't drive, I don't own the road, I don't own the traffic lights, and I don't follow the rules, I can endanger others.

          • Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by hazem ( 472289 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:36PM (#13120279) Journal
            We(society) accept traffic cops and their patrolling of the streets to keep us safe. (This is not the same as "law enforcement though.)

            I do believe you are wrong on this count. I do contract work for a person who works for my state - giving "Traffic Law Enforcement" presentations to judges and cops.

            There are traffic laws, and cops enforce them. That's law enforcement.

            What do you think a "code" is? Go check out http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ [gpoaccess.gov]

            The first sentence is: "The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States."
            • My point about "law enforcement" was that speeding is not considered a crime per se. going 75 in a 40 is reckless endangerment I'd assume. I know it's a sticky line between law and code, and IANAL, but there is a difference. A crime by default must cause the loss of rights or freedom, etc., to someone. murder, assault, vandalism, etc.

              a code violation doesn't necesarily have to. if i'm driving 85 an a deserted freeway a 2AM, some cop theoretically could still cite me though nobody is within 1 mile eith

          • Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by j-turkey ( 187775 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:52PM (#13120382) Homepage
            driving is a privilege not a right. there are certain things we trade to live in a free society, such as unlimited freedoms "I'll wherever, whenever, however" with basic safety. a traffic ticket is not a crime, it is a code violation, that's all.

            Even citizens accused of civil citations (code violations, as you put it) deserve proper protection under the law.

            Further, many traffic tickets are actaully crimes. In many states, speeding 20 MPH over the posted speed limit can be deemed reckless driving by the arresting officer...this is typically a misdemeanor. However, the evidence is still accepted as prima facie, and the driver is still preumed guilty until proven innocent. Sadly, this is widely abused across the country by many municipalities in order to enhance local revenue.

            We(society) accept traffic cops and their patrolling of the streets to keep us safe. (This is not the same as "law enforcement though.) We must follow traffic laws or else we'll be unable to drive anywhere.

            I sure don't accept many of their practices, including speed traps, DUI roadblocks, and red light cameras...particularly the latter, where the accused is not even given a chance to face their accusor.

            FWIW, I agree that we live in a society where we seem to have a sense of entitlement. It's a bummer. However, I still think that much of our speed enforcement as well as the 'justice' system surrounding it is a freaking joke. Criminal justice of any kind should not be treated in the cavalier manner that it is in the traffic system.

          • Law enforcement (Score:4, Informative)

            by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @10:34PM (#13120618)
            I'm not going to touch most of your points, which I feel others have handled well.

            Rather, I'm going to talk about a weird case; the sort of thing that makes me wonder about my (heavy) leaning towards classical liberal beliefs.

            I was going home, after meeting someone in another state. ~3 hour drive or so. I'm going about the speed limit (I hardly ever speed, because I hardly ever drive: I don't know the rules of what you can get away with, so I'm careful). My rearview flashes at me a few times with bright lights, so I pay attention. This car behind me is weaving all over the place, is completely inconsistent speed-wise (zooms up in a neighboring lane, swerves into mine, slows down, etc.), that sort of thing. It is going faster than me, on average, so I speed up - I don't want this dumbshit to sideswipe me. I plan to speed up and get off the highway, and let it go by.

            Only, I get pulled over in for 83 in a 65. Cop gets pissed at me for my explanation - "didn't you see that drunk maniac?" (I didn't say it that way; I was very calm and I respect weapons and later testimony.) He didn't like my answer. So, I got the $185 ticket, and 3 points. For dodging a drunk.

            So, here's the question for libertarians like me: If I'd have had a black box and cameras on my car, I could have proven that the cop was a dumbshit, and more importantly, not have had to pay the state, or the insurance weasels that currently feed on the state. Worth it?

            I still don't know myself.

          • driving is a privilege not a right.

            BS. Driving is not a privelage, it's a requirement. Maybe if you live somewhere with public transportation or mass transit, it's a privelage. Some of us actually don't live in an urban sprawl, and it's not exactly legal to ride a bike on an interstate. Our whole country has been developed with the idea of everyone driving everywhere. By revoking or suspending someone's license, you might as well be saying you want them to drive around without insurance, because that

            • Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by b17bmbr ( 608864 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @11:37PM (#13120995)
              that still doesn't make it a right. all the necessity in the world and it is still a privilege. what are you going to say to a judge when you've gotten your fourth speedin gticket in 6 months. "your honor, I need a car". he's going to laugh. sorry to be an ass, but you don't have to live in the sticks. it's not a requirement. and go back to my last point. for too many people, everything is a right. thinnk about it, if your lifestyle choices can negate law, or can determine the legal status of things, then we're on a pretty slippery slope.
          • Gee, I could use my mod points to mod parent down, or respond. Tough choice. http://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/CF015A63-6B 69-4EED-A34B6F4035C8BE0E/104/263/ [nolo.com] (Link to book on how to beat ticket. See also http://freedomlaw.com./ [freedomlaw.com.] ) Driving is a privilege. What happens in court involves your rights. There is also a right to travel, although it not absolute. A little study can arm you against the system. Drown them in paperwork with discovery requests. Demand a jury trial. I happen to live in a state where the right to trial by jury - for anything - is in the state constitution. (Slight overstatement for nonlawyers.) Ask nicely that your case be dismissed, and if not spend an hour politely asking the cop questions on the stand. If 8 people a day do this, the system grinds to a halt. Pretty soon they start dismissing your cases when they see you coming. Think of it as a seminar in due process. Have fun, bring coffee and donuts. Not to be construed as legal advice until your check clears.

            • I don't know about the US legal system, but here in the UK there's usually a scale of possible penalties for common traffic offences. Minor offences like routine speeding usually result in "fixed penalty notices" -- such and such costs you x amount of money and gets you y points, and if you pay up, it never goes to court.

              Now, you don't have to accept the fixed penalty, and can challenge the case in court if you wish. However, if you do so, the magistrates have access to the full range of penalties, and a

        • Iam sorry to contest you, but if you are considered as a threat to national security, or an enemy of state by Ashcroft, your much-vaunted rights to an attorney or a speedy trial will disappear like an ice cube under hot sahara sun. You will be treated as an enemy combatant STRIPPED of all rights under the much-vaunted constitution, literally STRIPPED and "stored" in Git'mo until you die or the Govt. Changes.

          In many ways US is much worse than a third-world country.

          So don't go preaching with one finger whe

      • Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) * on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:15PM (#13120131)
        This will have the consequence of pissing off the judge and the DA to no end
        And why should the judge's or DA's mood have _anything_ to do with a case? That is the major problem with local courts IMO. The small-time judges act as if they are god's and rulers of their domain.

        I once (many years ago in my college days) had a parking ticket. I put the ticket somewhere and it really got misplaced. I totally forgot about it. A few weeks later while I was on break from college and working during the summer, I get a knock on my apartment door. Two constables were standing there to arrest me for not paying a freackin $10 ticket! I go with them (in cuffs!) and go into a room with the judge; note: it was _not_ a court room. The judge basically acts as if he will put me away for a long time, tells his sheriff to re-cuff me and "take this punk away". Well, I really didn't want to go to jail, so I was basically at the judges mercy. I agreed to pay the fines, had to apologize to the court about how I "didn't mean to not take his jurisdiction seriously", yada, yada, yada.

        It really is a crook what local judges can get away with in the USA. Most of the cases they hear only need to show a "preponderance" of the evidence. Basically it means who ever the judge feels like believing. So if it is just your word and some cops, guess who the judge is going to believe?

        In local courts in the USA, it really is "guilty until proven innocent". Oh, unless of course you pay a lawyer a few hundred bucks to go with you to the small claims/local court. Judges act _totally_ different if you have representation! Without a lawyer, you are pretty much toast; with a lawyer, you have a much better chance. I think that it is really sad if you are not able to represent yourself in a municipal court!

    • Re:Hopefully the guy was innocent. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by patio11 ( 857072 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:32PM (#13119822)
      (Hopefully, innocent, they're -- OK, spelling mistakes fixed, now we can talk.)

      The small stakes and mechanical nature of the process of traffic court work in your favor if you choose to be one of the fraction that actually bothers to show up and contest the charges. Everything is weighted in favor of the officer, obviously, but they have an incentive system similar to AOL's technical support -- if the matter can't be disposed of within 6 minutes get off the line, its a loss. So if you present anything which bears even a cursory resemblance to an adequate defense the judge is likely to say "OK, whatever, be careful in the future. NEXT." Or you can pay a lawyer for the privilege and he'll do the exact same thing, except you'll be out more money than the fine was worth (incentives work both ways).

      • Except in California. They're nasty about that. This is especially so when you ride a motorcycle in California as a great number of my friends have discovered. If you are in one of the "annoyance to society" minorities you have a much bigger hill to climb for the judge to rule in your favor.

      • Re:Hopefully the guy was innocent. (Score:4, Funny)

        by Procyon101 ( 61366 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:53PM (#13119981) Journal
        Works even better for trivial misdemeanors:

        "My dog was NOT barking too loud. I would like to proceed to jury selection."

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Hopefully the guy was innocent. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by afidel ( 530433 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:10PM (#13120099)
          Depends on the judge and the situation. I hit a woman several years ago, technically it was my fault, but logically it was hers. She had stopped at the top of an exit ramp, then proceded into the intersection, I had pulled up, looked for oncoming traffic, then proceded into said intersection. Only problem was she had stopped in the middle of the intersection for no reason! So I went to traffic court and pled no contest (she had retained a lawyer and sent out a letter about possible whiplash so a guilty plea through paying the ticket was not wise) and explained the situation as quickly and courtously as I could. The judge let me off with just court costs and no points.

          • Re:Hopefully the guy was innocent. (Score:4, Funny)

            by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @11:54PM (#13121076) Homepage
            My girlfriend was running late to work one morning. She saw a cop in an SUV enter the freeway about 10 cars behind her, so she gunned it, figuring the SUV probably couldn't go that fast, and she was probably far enough ahead of him that he wouldn't notice. Of course that didn't work at all, and about a mile later she was pulled over. After he issued the ticket, as he was about to walk back to his car, the cop said, "Didn't you notice I was behind you?" She makes ridiculous comments all the time, and she answered, "Yeah, but I didn't think you'd be able to catch me." I mean really.. you'd have to be stupid to say that to a cop.

            So the court date rolled around about a month later. She decided to show up, plead guilty, and hope the charges would be reduced. The judge opened the case file and read over it for a minute. Finally he said: "Says here you thought you could outrun the cop?" And she just started laughing. "Well, he was in an SUV. I just thought..." And then the whole courtroom started laughing too. In the end, the judge decided to let her off with a warning because she made him laugh.

            Sometimes the best defense is no defense.

      • Re:Hopefully the guy was innocent. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:00PM (#13120033)
        Or you can pay a lawyer for the privilege and he'll do the exact same thing, except you'll be out more money than the fine was worth (incentives work both ways).

        Except that the fine is only a small part of the cost of a speeding ticket. The real cost can be thousands of dollars due to increased insurance premiums over the next 5-7 years. If your insurance only goes up by $50/quarter that is still $1,000 over the next 5 years. For a lot of people - young, male, single - it would not be unheard of to see your insurance rates increase by $100-$200/quarter. Auto insurance is legalized robbery.
        • Here in Texas, in many cities you can ask for "deferred adjudication," which is nothing more than converting your fine into an "administrative fee" and then letting you off the hook after some period of time with no violations (usually 90 days).

          So while the speeding ticket might be expensive, there's usually no need to worry about increased insurance premiums, since the insurance company won't ever find out.

          Which just goes to prove that most cities aren't concerned about deterring speeding, and would just
          • Or, you can get an insurance company that keeps lousy records. I have Allstate, and whenever I talk to my agent I always ask her what tickets they have records of in their system. In my life, I've only received 4 tickets (after 22 years of driving). 3 speeding, 1 for rear-ending someone on a wet road. Allstate managed to find out about only ONE of my speeding tickets, and they responded by lowering my premium by $40 a year for being a good driver.

            The really funny thing is that Allstate never seemed to figu
          • Hi! That sounds just like Russia. You pay the officer a small "fee" to forget about the ticket. The fee might be of the same size as the ticket, but wont be recorded anywhere.

            I had no idea Texas had that kind of corruption!
    • It doesn't quite work that way, in my opinion.

      A ticket is basically the same as being charged with a crime. Both are based on reasonable evidence that you broke the law. You can choose to not contest the charge, or you can choose to argue in your defense in court.

      The real difference is tickets give you the nice option of admitting guilt by mail, to save you an annoying trip to court.

      Do you know anyone who falsely got a ticket? If you go to court and say "I wasn't going over the speed limit", the police o

    • :You're innocent until proven guilty (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The trouble is that if you and the cop tell different stories, the judge will almost always believe the cop. The judge will say that the cop is doing his job and has no reason to lie whereas you do. So if it's the cop's word vs. your word, you lose.

      If there is any evidence, for instance if you have an independent witness, then you stand a chance. A case like this would be if the cop said that you didn't come to a full stop. If your boss is in the car and he says that you did come to a full stop, you wi
    • It's not a crime, it's an infraction.

  • Yes they have (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Noishe ( 829350 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:21PM (#13119724)
    A lawyer friend of mine who specializes in getting people off of speeding tickets does it all the time

  • illegal access! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Barbarian ( 9467 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:21PM (#13119725)
    Now the guy can be charged for unauthorized access of a computer network, like that guy in Florida that /. mentioned last week.

  • Exercising a loophole != proving innocence (Score:5, Informative)

    by Peter Cooper ( 660482 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:23PM (#13119743) Homepage Journal
    I read this yesterday when it did its round through the blogosphere, and from my understanding he simply made the judge doubt the memory of the police officer and not prove his innocence. There is a big difference between taking advantage of a loophole and actually having done no wrong. He simply found a flaw in the police officer's story and proved it, although the flaw, from what I could tell, was not directly related to whether the offense was committed or not.
    • There is a big difference between taking advantage of a loophole and actually having done no wrong.

      Yep. You hit the nail on the head. Welcome to the way that America's legal system has (almost) always operated.

    • Re:Exercising a loophole != proving innocence (Score:5, Informative)

      by Reverberant ( 303566 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:30PM (#13119808) Homepage
      although the flaw, from what I could tell, was not directly related to whether the offense was committed or not.

      I can't get to the article right now, but I also saw it yesterday. IIRC, the defendant's argument was that he was in the intersection to make a left turn, but had to wait for an oncoming car to clear the intersection before he could turn. The cop said that could not have happened because the street was one-way. Being able to demonstrate that the street was two-way was significant because it showed that his story was plausible - not to mention calling into question the arresting officer's ability to observe a crime-in-progress.

    • It's Called Impeaching a Witness (Score:5, Informative)

      by Poeir ( 637508 ) <poeir.geo@yahMENCKENoo.com minus author> on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:07PM (#13120079) Journal
      Doing this is known as impeaching a witness [wikipedia.org]. Witnesses that are impeached have their testimony thrown out and ignored, since they've shown that they can be wrong but are willing to state false information as fact. It is not a loophole, but a critical aspect under which common law operates, one of the checks to make sure that a witness presents the truth, whole truth, and (especially) nothing but the truth. Under the circumstances, the sole witness on the prosecution side was impeached, meaning that the prosecution had no evidence to present. Since there is (ostensibly) an innocent until proven guilty system in the US, without evidence, an individual will always be found not guilty if the prosecution presents no evidence.

    • no no no, it is innocent until proven guilty (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:09PM (#13120092) Journal
      he simply made the judge doubt the memory of the police officer and not prove his innocence. There is a big difference between taking advantage of a loophole and actually having done no wrong

      look, you can talk about loopholes.

      you can talk about high priced lawyers.

      but the american system of justice, when it works the right way, is that all people are innocent until proven guilty.

      it comes down to one question. would you rather let a guilty person go free, or lock up an innocent person. in the usa, we have a system where we don't want to lock up the innocent.

      look at what happened in illinois a couple years back. when the state did some dna testing on inmates, they found out they had over 100 people on death row who were innocent. these people got conivected because they had bad lawyers, the police needed to arrest someone, so they picked up a crack head or someone unemployed.

      people should be free. we don't want the patriot act. we don't want people being arrested and held without being charged. we don't want the police going through reading lists, casting fishing nets, and without having any reason, looking for anyone to arrest. it is like a cop who decides to go by the local highschool, see who graduated in the bottom 10%, figuring the dumb ones are the troublemakers, and then following them around until he finds one of them in the woods smoking a joint.

      then again, with cities like boston and chicago putting up 3000 cameras that can look inside of cars, that is the direction we are going.

      i feel sorry for the people without any money. if they ever get charged with anything, they are fucked. look at the husband of the wife who dissapeared. the police started interviewing him, there were reports he was the #1 suspect. then one day, his wife shows up in las vegas. she got cold feet. if the police wanted to, they could have strung up that man and ruined him. there was a story about a man who worked for the usa, at a wepons lab, around the time the anthrax was mailed to the senate. he was the #1 suspect. the fbi tore apart his house, they tore open his mattress, they put holes in his walls, all looking for evidence. the fbi then went to his girlfriends house, and did the same thing. they could not find nothing, but they still call him the #1 suspect. he is free, but always followed. and the police keep threatening him, of more searches, of harrasing his friends.

      i'll give one last example. look at monica lewinsky. people should read about what the fbi did to her. they grabbed her off the streat, forced her into a hotel room, and told her if she did not describe her relationship with the president (the blowjobs), they would arrest her and she would never be free again. one fbi agent told her, i think i should call your dad, to let him know what you did. talk to us or i'll call. and for the first 6 hours, when she asked for a lawyer, they would not give her one, and instead threatened to call her parents, friends, and to let the media know what she did. they put her through hell, and never charged her with anything.

  • Using the internet to prove your innocence... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:23PM (#13119744)
    Here's a brief tale of my experience..

    A few years ago, I was involved in a bad traffic accident. The time was well before dawn, and I was starting on my morning commute to Lansing. I turned out from my subdivision onto a main street, and was broadsided by a car whose driver had failed to turn his lights on. After the accident, I asked the other driver if he had his lights on. "No.", he blithely replied. "Don't you think you should have???" I said. In response, he gave only a shrug.

    Fast forward two and a half hours later, when the police finally arrive at the scene (that's right, two and a half hours). The policeman asks what happened. I reply that I pulled out in front of the other car, but I was unable to see him as it was pitch black out, and the other driver had neglected to turn his lights on. The policeman asks the other driver, "Did you have your lights on?" "No", he replies. The policeman then writes him a ticket for driving without headlights. Then, he turns around and writes me a ticket for failure to yield! "How exactly was I supposed to yield to a vehicle I couldn't see, Officer?", I ask testily. His only reply is "tell it to the judge".

    So now, in addition to having to get my car towed, and the hassle of opening a claim with my insurance company, I get to miss a day of work going to court. Before the court date, I compile a stack of data from various sources on the internet, all showing that the time of sunrise at the exact latitude and longitude of the accident, on the date of the accident, was a full two hours after the time of the accident, thus proving that the ambient light was zero, and that I had no chance to see the light-less car heading my way.

    Fast forward to the court date. I walk into court with a thick sheaf of papers under my arm, determined to absolve myself of any blame.

    The case lasted exactly twelve seconds. The officer failed to show, and the judge dismissed the case.

    To this day, I still remember the odd mixture of relief and indignation I felt as I walked out of the courthouse.

    • Re:Using the internet to prove your innocence... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:46PM (#13119934)
      This should be a lesson to everybody. Never admit fault to anything, even if you're in the right. Only answer direct questions about yourself and provide as much information as possible about the other person. It seem like a slimy thing to do, but the system is slimy and you'll get screwed unless you play by their (slimy) rules.
    • I had a similar experience, only I was far less prepared. I guess that makes this sorta OT since I didn't use technology to get out of it, but whatever...

      I was commuting from downtown Cleveland to the suburbs along Carnegie Ave, which ran from downtown (with dynamic lanes) all the way out into the 'burbs, where it turned into Cedar Rd. One of the first suburbs it went through was Cleveland Heights, whose police are notoriously anal-retentive about speeding (stories of people being ticketed for doing 3mph o

  • Slashdoted already, text from Network Mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by moonka ( 889094 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:24PM (#13119754) Homepage
    In January of this year, I was pulled over by a traffic officer for "disobeying a steady red", a.k.a. running a red light. I pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge, and today - nearly six months later - I went to court to find out the fate of my ticket violation. Check out how Google Maps saved me some serious cash - and points on my license! There I was on a bench waiting for my name to be called at the Downtown Manhattan DMV hearings bureau. After hearing several testimonies from other drivers, I knew this Judge wasn't going to be sympathetic to my troubles. So driver after driver, all but one had a happy ending. So now I'm worried because being found guilty would mean a 150 dollar fine, plus 50 in penalties, and worse of all points on my license. I began to contemplate how it all happened since it had been so long. I jotted down some notes on a small piece of paper, and then the moment of truth arrived. After my name was called, I gathered my belongings and made my way up to the stand where the offending officer joined me. The judge swore her in and asked for her testimony. The officer did what I expected - after all, I had been listening to all of those prior testimonies - and began to describe the scene of the violation. In her story I noticed one fatal flaw, which I had planned to exploit but I had no proof whatsoever. The officer stated the street I was on was a one way westbound street and I was turning onto an avenue that was at a two way street separated by a concrete divider. Only thing was, I was on a two way, not one. So it came time for my testimony and I stated that I was in mid-turn when an oncoming vehicle was coming toward me very quickly and I had decided not to make the turn until that SUV passed me. The Judge stopped and asked me how could there be an oncoming vehicle if the street was only one way. I stated that it was indeed a two way street. The officer reiterated that it was only a one way. So who was the judge to believe? I was desperate for proof so I did the unthinkable: I whipped out my notebook. I was very lucky to find an extremely bad connection via Wi-Fi. I pulled up Firefox and when to maps.google.com. I typed up the intersection and zoomed in as close as possible: Description As you can see, Cathedral Pkwy (110th street) has no arrow indicating the traffic directions. However, 109th and 111th do. I mentioned this to the judge that this means that 110th is indeed a two way street. The traffic officer begged to differ. She said perhaps an arrow was just missing from the equation. So I called her bluff, and researched a new intersection, Times Square: Description I asked her honor if she was familiar with 42nd Street. She nodded and I continued to mention how all of its neighboring streets have indication arrows of the direction, with one exception: 42nd Street. Everyone knows that this is a two way. The judge said that due to lack of memory of the officer she will have to dismiss the violation. Thank you Google Maps, you rule. Go here for the pics http://www.networkmirror.com/eImYJ9RHQxDLQcPZ/www. gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/google_maps_he lps_fight_traffic_tickets_07160942/index.html [networkmirror.com]

  • Easier Way (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:27PM (#13119771)
    The easiest way to get out of a speeding ticket is to ask the officer technical questions like "When was the last time the radar gun was calibrated?" and "What type of software does your system use?" Then hit them with the grand finale to get out of the ticket "May I see the code?"

  • Cops could point out wild inaccuracies... (Score:4, Informative)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:29PM (#13119794) Homepage Journal
    ...of google maps. Depending the search, they might be accurate, or they might be much less accurate than the speed check.

    About the time I saw this pop up on Slashdot, I was searching google maps for "smithsonian air space" in "washington, dc". Pretty simple, right? It gives 2 results, neither within a mile of the real answer. (One answer looked like it was in a residential neighborhood perhaps 2 miles away, the other about a mile away - in the median strip of a highway.) I've had a case looking for a place in my own area where the google map was miles off, and another time searching for a particular restaurant in Concord, New Hampshire with similar inaccuracies. Sometimes google maps are right, too.

    • Veracity of Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rwade ( 131726 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:35PM (#13119843)
      Presumably before the defendent was allowed to do anything with that laptop the judge must have admitted it as evidence.

      If an item is admitted as evidence, the court has to believe that it is accurate. It is assumed that it is because it is approved by the judge (of truth).

      The only way the officer could argue that Google Maps is crap enough to disprove the defendent's case is to suggest that it not be included as evidence.

      Does a police officer that responds to traffic accidents know anything about how to do that?

  • Yup, worked for me too. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by technothrasher ( 689062 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:30PM (#13119804)
    I don't know if it'll be as impressive to the court going forward if everybody does it, but when I walked in a couple of years ago and pulled out my printed satellite photos from yahoo of the intersection where I allegedly ran a red light, the magistrate just said, "Not Responsible" without even looking at it or hearing any other evidence.

  • Boing Boing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:31PM (#13119810)

    This is getting to be a joke.

    The story about tusk-free elephants? On Boing Boing first [boingboing.net].

    The story about the nine year-old geek girl? On Boing Boing first [boingboing.net].

    The story about the Death Star subwoofer? On Boing Boing first [boingboing.net].

    And now this story [boingboing.net] comes from Boing Boing too?

    These are only the stories I've noticed from the past couple of days reading Boing Boing. It's one thing to aggregate geek news from a variety of sources. It's another thing entirely to simply copy everything Boing Boing does. Slashdot is going downhill faster and faster.

  • Use the Uncertainty Principle (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:32PM (#13119821)

    Speeding tickets always include a) the speed, and b) the location. Both cannot be known with arbitrary precision, therefore the ticket must be bogus.

  • Speed check (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jambon ( 880922 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:36PM (#13119856) Journal
    I wonder if anyone's gotten out of a ticket by showing how inaccurate most speed-check methods can be

    I heard of someone who tried. My government teacher in high school told us of a friend who contested a speeding ticket under the premise that the radar gun wouldn't tell the correct speed of his car when measured from the side. So, he paid for a jury trial, and proceeded to go on at great lengths on how the radar gun wasn't accurate. Everything was going fine until the cop took the stand.

    He asked the cop, "So, is it true that radar guns do not measure the correct speed when used from the side instead of straight on?"

    "Sure," the cop answered, "they register a lower speed."

    Needless to say, the guy wasn't too happy about turning a relatively cheap speeding ticket into an expensive embarrassment.

  • I did. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:39PM (#13119873)
    A cop ticketed me for doing 60 in a 40 - I saw him, checked my speed (42) and figured I was OK. I took pictures of the car where it was stopped and his view of the road from where they were parked, got aerial photos (acme.com) and did the calculations that showed that for him to catch me and stop me where he did then either I couldn't have been doing more than low 40s or if I was doing 60 he had to get his car backed out of a parking spot, get going and on the main road in under 2 seconds. The court looked at it and since I said I was doing 42, gave me a $25 "sign violation". Not a bad morning's work.

  • yeah, and did you hear the one about the... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:41PM (#13119891) Journal
    this is a bullshit article. there were maps before google. how can a map get someone out of a ticket? did the cop not know where he was? did the cop think he was in a 30mph zone when he was in a 40 mph zone? this is free advertising for google.

    it is a con, to try and get people to think of a good use for an intrusive technology. my property, its maps, and what it looks like is my business and nobody elses.

    anyways... here is my court story:

    what most people don't know is the traffic court judge is not there to be a judge. he is more lika an administrator for the city, whos job is to collect as much money as possible.

    in my town the traffic court judge is not even a lawyer. i went to court for a ticket because i did not have my insurance card in my car. i was late to court, and the judge would not hear my case, i was fined $550.

    before i continue, i should mention the reason i was late to court. the county changed the court from the building where the court has been the past 25 years, to a different location. while i was pulling on locked court doors, on the opposite side of town court was in session.

    so i went to see the clerk of the court. this is the man who has ALL the power. well, the chief judge is the true power, a real lawyer, and has administrative power over all judges, but it is the clerk who is is gatekeeper. the clerk cleared out the conviction, reset a court date and all was dandy, so i thought.

    next time, i showed up at court a good hour early. i had everything i needed to prove my case, a letter from my insurance company stating i had insurance the day i was pulled over, and my current insurance card.

    they call my name...

    me: your honor, i have a letter from my insurance compamy...

    the judge inturrupts me

    judge: wait, i am not here to listen to your insurance case, i'm going to first decide why i should hear your case. i don't know if i am the right court to review a conviction.

    me: your honor, you are the court of original jurisdiction, and the clerk vacated the past conviction.

    judge: i am not convinced. motion to rehear denied.

    so, there i was, a judge who fucked me in under 15 seconds. before i could say another word, the court called the next case. i went back to the clerks office, dejected and ready to pay. somehow, the clerk remembered me. he asked, "how come you still have the fine, you showed me your insurance letter last time, the judge should have dismissed the ticket". i explained to him what happened.

    and what happened next blew my mind. the clerk took out a pink colored pad of paper, about 3 inches by 4 inches, scribbled his signature on it, told me to go to office 427 and haand it to the woman, who would then get me 5 minutes with the chief judge. i started by handing the chief judge my insurance papers, because i know these guys are busy and would rather quickly skim evidance than listen to me for half an hour. in under a minute i explained what happened.

    the chief judge went in his computer, reset my court date again, this time telling me who the judge was going to be and that he would call the judge to tell him about my case personally.

    next time i showed up to court, there was a different judge. my case was dismissed. the judge even appologized for my wasted time.

    • my property, its maps, and what it looks like is my business and nobody elses.

      Actually, lot survey information, land deeds, USGS maps, maps of public roads, etc., are generally public information.

    • this is a bullshit article. there were maps before google. how can a map get someone out of a ticket? did the cop not know where he was? did the cop think he was in a 30mph zone when he was in a 40 mph zone?

      Try reading TFA, which is mirrored in this comment [slashdot.org] if you can't load it.

      DRIVER: Your Honor, I was only in that intersection after the light turned red because I was waiting for a break in oncoming traffic so I could turn left.

      COP: That's not true, it was a one-way street. There was no oncoming traffi

  • Not exactly, but... (Score:2, Informative)

    by cavemanf16 ( 303184 )
    My high school calculus teacher liked to tell the story of how a speed trap setup tagged a former student of his right after he had taken this teacher's calculus course in high school. If I remember correctly, the student basically used some basic calculus to prove that he would have had to accelerate from 65mph to 100+mph and back down to 65mph within a pretty short distance (too short for an average car to achieve) in order to have actually been going as fast as the two cop cars at each end of the speed t

  • Ask slashdot about speeding? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:50PM (#13119956)
    Quick question. I've always read that when the officer asks do you know how fast you were going that you are supposed to not say because this is used as a confession in court.

    However, I've wondered what the correct answer would be?

    I don't know? I wish to remain silent or fib and say you were going at or slightly above the speed limit? I mean what is the most legal route.

    • Re:Ask slashdot about speeding? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Reverberant ( 303566 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @08:59PM (#13120026) Homepage
      when the officer asks do you know how fast you were going [....] However, I've wondered what the correct answer would be?

      Answer: "I was moving with the flow of traffic"

      If the cop's response indicates that the flow of traffic was exceeding the speed limit, you're pretty much screwed, but you can try to argue that it's safer to move at the speed of the traffic flow than to go faster or slower than the traffic (which is true BTW).

    • The correct answer would be: "I believe I was doing the speed limit officer, is there a problem?"

    • How to dodge a ticket (Score:4, Informative)

      by snowwrestler ( 896305 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @11:26PM (#13120928)
      This has worked for me a number of times. It is based on the psychology of a traffic stop. Almost nothing is more scary or dangerous to a cop than a traffic stop--until they get to your window they have no idea if you have a gun, or are planning to back over them or drive away. So cops don't like traffic stops, especially at night. Putting them at ease goes a long way toward getting them in a mood to let you off.

      If you're pulled over (assuming at night for worst case):

      1) Turn off your engine and your lights.
      2) Turn ON your interior light, so the cop can see into the car.
      3) Place your keys on the dashboard where the cop can see them as he walks up to the car.
      4) Place your hands on the steering wheel where the cop can see them and don't move them. If you didn't roll down your window right away, don't do so until the cop is right there with the flashlight on your hands.
      5) Pre-narrate every movement. E.g. "My license is in my back pocket." [reach] or "My registration is in my glove box." [reach] Reach slowly and let the officer see what you're doing. Keep hands in sight as much as possible.
      6) Admit no wrongdoing...but don't tell lies or make excuses, and be polite. "Flow of traffic" or "keeping up with traffic" is good if there's traffic, if not, you don't know how fast you were going.
      7) If you're going to get a ticket, ask for a warning or a lesser fine. It doesn't hurt to ask, if it's done calmly and nicely.

      To most cops, traffic stops are about safety -- making them feel safe, and emphasizing your safe driving record (assuming you have one!) can go a long way to getting a warning or a reduced fine.
  • I just received a letter telling me I had a citation for illegal parking in San Francisco. I never go to San Francisco during the day - I neither live nor work there. So my first response was to go into my email to see if there is a 'paper' trail for what I was doing that day. I found that I was at a meeting in another city at the time. This won't provide proof in court, but at least now I know where I was and I can be 100% confident that unless we're dealing with a corrupt cop the handwritten citation won'

  • Plead Civil . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:12PM (#13120107) Homepage
    My brother always gets out of his tickets. He contacts the prosecuting attorney and asks if he can plead civil. That is, pay the find without incurring the points. All they want is the revenue anyway.

    Also, the reason why it seems we're guilty until proven innocent is because it's a strict liability crime. All they have to do is prove you did it. And, cops spend a lot of time doing this.

    If your jurisdiction has speeding as a misdemeanor, piss them off by demanding your Constitutional right to a jury trial. They can't deny and the cost will be so high as to make the ticket not worth it.

  • This happened to a friend of mine also... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zeno_2 ( 518291 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:13PM (#13120115)
    We both used to work in a place who, among other things, supported this product called Microsoft Streets and Trips. He was leaving work one day, and a cop pulled him over. The cop told him that he was 'pacing' him and didnt even use a radar on him.

    He went to court, printed out the map of our area in streets and trips, and presented that evidence. He pretty much told the judge that his car is incapable of accellerating to 65 (i think thats what the cop said he was going) in that short amount of time.

    The judge was so impressed, that after he dropped the charges, he asked my friend what program he used to make that map. My friend got out of a 675 dollar ticket because of that..

  • My Court Case... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @09:26PM (#13120207) Homepage
    There was an accident on the highway, so all the traffic was getting off and driving thru my little residential neighborhood the 4 blocks to the next exit.

    Anyways, the light was red, it's was raining (mostly a drizzle) and a cop cruiser was across the street. Several minutes pass - no change in light. I decide to take a right turn instead of going straight. But the two times I try I almost get into an accident. (You see I am stuck on an arching overpass and unable to see what is behind me due to the elevation of the bridge.) Deciding that it is more prudent to simply wait then risk an accident - I wait.

    Still no change in the light. I try to peer into the police vehicle but find myself unable to see inside due to the rain. Okay, this is getting excessive. I've now been at this light several minutes (and I mean approaching 10 minutes) without an iouta of direction, no light change, nadda.

    Finally, I see the police crusier roll forward toward the light control box. I am like "finally". So I wait for a while longer. A few more minutes....nothing!

    After what felt like over 10 minutes (and I later realized was probably closer to 15) I decided that either the "light" or the "officer" was not functioning properly.

    So I treated it as one is specified to treat a broken light. I treated it as if I had a STOP sign and the oncoming had right of way. I waited for a pause in traffic and "proceeded with caution".

    So I get a block down and what do I see but colorful lights. The cop is in a whole tiff. I am like "Is there a problem officer..." He responded "You just ran a read light." I told him the light was not functioning. His response was he was manning it remotely. Which I believe - I just sincerely doubt if he was actually awake for most of the time. I told him I was going to fight it in court. He refused to give me his badge number - told me it was on the ticket. However, it was only partially written out.

    (oh, might I add as I was driving back down the street a minute later the light turned red as soon as my truck reached the intersection...thankfully, 30 seconds later it was green and I could finally get on my way to work)

    So this leads to court dates. Now we are really !@#$% up here in Connecticut.

    First off, you have about 2 weeks to mail the ticket. Which I did promptly. It would over 6 months before I received any notification that they even received it.

    Then, I called the DA office. I told them I did not want any plea bargain and that I wanted to go straight to trial. Doesn't matter of course.

    They give you a court date or so you think. In truth, you take 1/2 day off from work and wait only to be called up and offered a plea bargain. If you turn down the plea bargain they give you another court date. When you ask them why? they inform you that they must get your record first.

    WTF?

    6 months, and they assign you a court date and do not have your record for the case?

    So you come back a second time....they offer you a plea bargain once again. I turned it down....guess what? Yup...you guessed it!

    They give you another court date (the excuse this time is that they have to subpeona the officer). Wait, okay no record the first time, no opposition.

    So finally, I get a court date (on the third trip to the court). I argued my case on the following points:

    - the purpose of the officer being there was to guide and direct traffic and minimise confusion, the officer clearly failed this role and in fact furthered the confusion at hand

    - if the intent was to not change the light a detour should have been erected instead

    - my last main point was a technical argument on justice. if one were stopped at a light and there was a no turn on red (and we all know full well a U-turn is illegal on a bridge). What is one to do if that light never turns green? You cannot justly tell me that I have to remain at that light forever? or commit a violation of the law? so please tell me - in that

    • Re:My Court Case... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hacker ( 14635 ) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Thursday July 21, 2005 @08:40AM (#13123513)

      "So this leads to court dates. Now we are really !@#$% up here in Connecticut."

      I feel your pain, and I've lived in CT my whole life. See my two previous posts on this, here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org].

      I have a lot of really ugly stories about being pulled over that would floor most people.

      My worst one was probably when I was pulled over at 4pm for not driving with my lights on. $285.00 ticket on the spot, and the officer forgot to give me my license back (and I forgot to ask).

      I get back in my car, the officer gets back in his and speeds off down the highway. I get ONE EXIT further down the highway, and the same officer peels in behind me from the on-ramp and pulls me over again... for the same infraction (it was still very much daylight out, no need for headlights). He asks me for my license which I can't find, then I remember that he still has it. I tell him he still has it, and he yells at me for "backtalking him".

      I should also note that I had a good friend in the car, a black friend, who was also pre-law... but we were both dressed casual and he sort of looks like a gangster. His name is also... no joke.. Charles Dickens.

      The officer writes me another $285.00 ticket for the lack of headlights, and I lost my cool. I begin telling him that its perfectly light outside, and that even HIS vehicle is driving without headlights. I asked him if I could write HIM a ticket for not driving with headlights. $516.00 in infractions in less than 1/2 mile of roadway. It was utter bullshit, and I said exactly that to his face.

      His partner decides to go to my passenger side of the vehicle and ask Charles (I called him "Chuck D") for his ID. Charles said he doesn't have to produce any ID, since he's not the one driving. The officer insists to see his ID, and Charles says that he wasn't carrying any. The officer opens the car door on the passenger side and asks Charles to step out of the vehicle (Meanwhile, I'm arguing with the officer telling him what I think he can do with his pen and pad and certain parts of my anatomy. Yes, this is all perfectly legal, as long as you don't directly threaten the officer).

      Charles refuses to get out of the car, and the officer grabs his jacket and arm and tries to force him out of the vehicle saying "Get outta the car, nigger!". Charles yanks the officer's hand off of his arm and says something like "What did you just say? What did you just call me? You can't just grab people out of their cars. What's your job officer, 'Serve and Protect and Break a Nigger's Neck'?", and steps out of the vehicle. Charles is 6'4" tall, big, black, smart, and was (at the time) studying law. The officer was about 5'6" tall and didn't expect what he got.

      Needless to say, after all this arguing between all of us (Charles still not producing any ID), the officer calls for a tow truck for my vehicle and demands my keys. I told him the only way he's getting my keys is if he shoots me here on the roadside. He doesn't even have a right to my keys if he arrests me, since they immediately would go into evidence, and since they are my property and I won't waive my rights to my property, he can't even touch them.

      After demanding my keys for 10 minutes, the tow truck arrives, and I tell the officer that I'll allow the tow truck driver to use my keys to get the car into the truck bed, and then I'm locking it again.

      The car gets towed and I give the keys to the tow truck operator (who I happened to know personally from my dart league). He tows the car to the yard and we find a ride home.

      At 3:30am, I get a call from the night watchman at the auto yard where my car was towed. He tells me that he got a note from my friend (the tow truck driver) to keep an eye on the car in the yard. Apparently at 3:00am, these two cops went back to the yard, sli

  • How to get out of most speeding tickets (Score:5, Informative)

    by flamingdog ( 16938 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @01:16AM (#13121498) Homepage
    Ask to see the radar.

    Most traffic cops rely on you incriminating yourself to give a ticket. My roommate is a cop, and he's had courses on "verbal jujitsu" from an instructor who's goal when he pulls someone over is to give them a ticket and have them politely thank him for it.

    If you are in heavy traffic, or even medium traffic, you can not be reliably radar'ed. In these cases, almost every time, if you just answer "no, sir, I really don't know how fast I was going, I don't think I was going faster than anyone else." they'll give up and tell you to slow down (at least that is the case in major cities, it may not work in small towns where they still get hardons from issuing a traffic citation).

    All it boils down to is:

    Were you in heavy traffic when you were supposedly radared? If yes, take it to court, because they have to mark that on the ticket, and you can make up almost any story to say they are wrong (my roommate "wrecklessopp" has been pulled over over 50 times, and has only been given 3 tickets. He does exactly what I've said, and he takes every case to court.)

    Ask to see the radar (or whatever device they claim to have caught you with.) More often than not, they see you going faster than traffic, can't radar you quick enough, decide to pull you over, and tell you that you were going "pretty fast there, son." Asking to see the radar will get you out of a lot of tickets (if you were in heavy traffic.)

    But, remember, traffic cops are power tripping assholes, so the best thing you can do is ALWAYS BE POLITE. NO MATTER WHAT. DO NOT BE A SMART ASS. TAKE THE KEYS OUT OF THE IGNITION, PUT THEM IN PLAIN SIGHT ON THE DASHBOARD, AND POLITELY ASK TO SEE THE RADAR BECAUSE YOU REALLY DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE GOING THAT FAST.

    Oh, and if you were in light to no traffic you're fucked no matter what. You've been radared and they won't listen to your story. You pay the court costs, and good night.

    • Re:How to get out of most speeding tickets (Score:4, Informative)

      by hacker ( 14635 ) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Thursday July 21, 2005 @08:16AM (#13123336)
      Ask to see the radar (or whatever device they claim to have caught you with.) More often than not, they see you going faster than traffic, can't radar you quick enough, decide to pull you over, and tell you that you were going "pretty fast there, son." Asking to see the radar will get you out of a lot of tickets (if you were in heavy traffic.)

      Not in Connecticut.

      In CT, you can ask to see the radar, and they'll say "No." (I've asked). You can ask to know the details of the reason they're stopping you, and they can say "No." (I've also asked).

      You can mail the station asking for a copy of the officer's log for that stop, and they can refuse.

      You can take pictures of the location of the stop and bring them to court, and the prosecutor can refuse to admit them into evidence (before you even get into the courtroom).

      See, I've been pulled over 57 times in about 5 years, and been in court fighting tickets about 65 times (after postponements and continuances supposedly engineered to discourage me from returning to fight more). I've fought every ticket and won/nollied most of them, except the few where the prosecutor refused to admit the evidence that proved without a doubt, that I was in the right.

      I've even had cops pull in behind me at a red light in a light snow, and when the light turned green I took an immediate left into a Dunkin Donuts parking lot, where the cop threw on his flashing lights and said I ran the red light at 20mph over the limit... the same red light he stopped behind me at. Yes, cops are crooked in CT, but they're backed up by the even-more-crooked court system they allow here (see my previous post in this thread on the matter [slashdot.org]).

  • want to hear some good stuff (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deleted_soul ( 181808 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @01:55AM (#13121694) Homepage
    You don't really need Google maps for speeding tickets sometimes basic physics is all you need.

    I won a case in League City, Texas. the officer game me a ticket saying i was going 85 in a 65 in the fog. You heard me the fog. That night the fog was so thick we got lost for an hour driving around because we couldn't see landmarks. Now not everybody knows that laser and active radar don't work too well in the fog or rain... If you can prove this point your case is made. Besides the fog I had a few other things in my favor.

    I filed a 'writ of discovery' to find out what they had against me before I went to court. I found this info in a book about speed traps. I represented myself and I am not trained in law. I even gave them some lead time with the write so they had more than enough time to answer my writ.

    Using the writ I was able to find out a few things. The first being that they really really did not want to produce the operation manual for their radar gun. I got a handwritten note from the DA that pretty much said if you want to see it you'll have to come in & read it. The second is that they had not had the radar gun tested as is required in some states to be proven accurate under the law. The third is that the officers training was out of date. The FCC required officers be trained in radar safety and the gun to be calibrated every 3 months. The officer and the gun were not in regulation. I still have a copy of the officers certification and the maintenance log of the radar gun. They were both out of date.

    On top of this I had been stopped before a speed trap. There was road construction for miles right before I was stopped. I made the DA really mad when I brought up the fact that road signs are spaced an approximate distance appart from each other. I basically pulled out the fact if I had been going 85 by the time it took me to apply pressure to my breaks to slow down in the area
    where the officer said he had clocked me speeding I would have been going so fast (I was in an 89' s-10 blazer v6) I would have been well into the speed zone.

    When the DA found out I was there the court intentionally held the case after everybody left so that nobody would know what I was about to point out. I was amazed at how many people would have been seriously ticked if they knew this kind of information. Technically it would be a federal crime for an office to use an uncalibrated radar gun unlicensed. It just goes to show law enforcement makes the most money off of ignorance than anything else. Most people are too lazy to defend themselves. Do you know how many people pay for tickets when the officer doesn't even show up to court, just because they think they are getting off, or that something worse could happen. Whats worse than paying money out you don't have to give? Seriously. Some of these small towns have probably not calibrated their guns since they first bought them. Use this info to your advantage.

    • I filed a 'writ of discovery' to find out what they had against me before I went to court. I found this info in a book about speed traps. I represented myself and I am not trained in law. I even gave them some lead time with the write so they had more than enough time to answer my writ.

      I have been pulled over no less than 57 times in 5 years for various things (only 4 were for speeding, however, the rest were pure harrassment and profiling, and yes, I'm white. I've changed my hair, appearance, car, an

  • Alternate uses for Google Maps (Score:3, Funny)

    by erlando ( 88533 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @03:29AM (#13122101) Homepage
    The admin of gearlive.com must be wondering if he can use Google Maps to get out of the slashdotting..

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close