Slashdot Mirror
Using Google Maps to Get Out of a Traffic Ticket
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.
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.
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
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.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
...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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Mirrordot saves the day.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
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 trap had said he was going when they clocked him. Don't know if that was a true story or if he was just trying to get us to learn our maths, but it could certainly work.
In a related, albeit less positive story:
My sophmore year in college one of my friends was majoring in astrophysics, and was finishing up a course involving thermodynamics and friction or some crap like that. Anyways, we were attending ERAU in Daytona Beach, and the cops there were pretty much clueless morons. My friend was driving at the approved speed limit (35mph I think it was) and was going through an intersection where it was basically like driving over a hill. Some moron pulled in front of him and he had to quickly, but safely, apply his brakes. Unfortunately, due to his velocity over the hump of the intersection he squealed the tires as his car did not have enough down-force to keep the tires from locking up as he went over the hill of the intersection. The way he tells it, after about 30 seconds of trying to explain this to the cop who had just pulled him over for squealing his tires, the cop's eyes glazed over, he got perturbed, and wrote my friend a ticket - just for squealing his tires. (which of course proved nothing of my friend's ability or inability to yield to the traffic laws at that moment) I think he ended up just paying the ticket, figuring that any other government official in Volusia County, Florida would be no better at understanding the physics involved in his traffic incident than the cop that pulled him over.
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.
Doing this is known as impeaching a witness. 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.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
Problem with that is that in many (most?) states, you have no right to a jury trial for a misdemeanor. Most rights we associate with the courts only apply to felonies.
Really?
Although some jurisdictions allow non-lawyers to be judges, this is relatively rare (as far as I know). And lawyers are required to hold J.D. degrees.
I was writing about traffic court judges. Sorry, I should have made that more clear. Many are either elected, or are appointed by local mayors. It might vary by city, but around here, the local mayors appoint people based on the spoils system. They pick people who helped them get elected, local townspeople who want the prestege of being a judge.
Since most traffic court judges never do anything more than collect a fine, it is not like they have to rule on evidance, what is admissable, or things like that. I doubt anyone ever suppressed evidence in a traffic court case by motioning a lack of discovery (government sharing of evidence with the defense, which is required). And I doubt a traffic court judge has ever had to rule on voir dire. But these are events that even the most basic drug dealer or theft case would have.
And you are correct, all lawyers have to hold a law degree, and in most places that is the J.D. degree, although some places will admit people with a LL.B. into the bar.
I can't remember, but was Louisiana the only state which allowed non J.D.'s to sit for the bar? Maybe that was the 80's. And I think California and Michigan are the only two states that will allow non bar-accredited students to sit for the bar exam.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Amidst all these people providing helpful hints for getting out of speeding tickets, I'd like to offer one more suggestion:
Don't speed.
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 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 traffic.
DRIVER: Wrong. *pulls up Google Maps* See? It is a two-way street.
JUDGE: I wish cops would pay more attention. Dismissed.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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 rather have your money.
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.
I forget what 8 was for.
And the idea that E=MC^2 is a law is hilarious. All "laws" of science are just observations that we can repeat enough times to believe that they are constant in the universe somehow. If something happens that "violates" a "law of science" it doesn't mean that the occurence is somehow in the wrong, just that our "law" isn't wide enough in it's scope or is somehow flawed.
don't want to spoil a good rant (or conspiracy theory), but Ashcroft is no longer Attorney General. Just thought you should know...
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Happened to a friend of mine. She hit a car making a left turn just as the light turned and she was going through. When the cops showed up the lady was going on and on about how the car had been her dead fathers, blah blah. Turned out shed bought the car the day before (still had the dealer plates) and shed done the same thing twice before.
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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/
(Link to book on how to beat ticket. See also http://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.
Actually, that isn't the law in every jurisdiction. For example, in Ontario it is decided on a town-by-town basis, and only applies to people driving straight through rather than those who are turning. I do, however, agree that it is a good way to drive in general.
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.
---------------------------
Ohhh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I had the CHOICE of paying 3000$ a month for an apartment within walking distance of my 9$ an hour job. Now that you've enlightened me I can just move my stuff in and stop worrying about getting to work! GREAT!
I know this might be hard to fathom for you LA born and Bred city folk, but not everyone makes 65 or 70K a year. And y'know what, a lot of those people work in areas where walking distance from their job (Call it 5 miles) is either filled with apartments FAR FAR out of their income range, or filled with industrial and commercial centers that don't offer housing. I suppose they could all choose to quit their jobs and get different ones. But how about you spend 15 minutes thinking about the effect that would have on your local downtown shopping experience. Driving is a necessity in our country. There is no argument about that. Taking away someones license completely would usually mean the loss of their job, followed by the loss of their home, car, quite likely the loss of their spouse... All because they were driving a little faster than some cop thought they should be? I don't think that's a reasonable punishment.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
It was not possible for him to have traveled that distance at that speed.
Huh? Speeding isn't about an average speed. It isn't about traveled a specific distace too quickly. It's about being at a certain point with a speed to fast. So to say that you weren't speeding because of a distance you had traveled to get to that point doesn't make sense at all. What if he had traveled at 20mph 95% of the time and 65mph 5% of the time. He's still guilty even though he couldn't have made it to that point at that time going 65mph the whole way there!
Furthermore, dark or not, I'm guessing that had he been only going 25mph when the police office noticed the speeding vehicle that passed him, even in the dark, an officer would easily be able to pick out a car going twice as fast as another. It's not like their speeds were close, if what the poster said was true.
-Brent