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.

32 of 817 comments (clear)

  1. Hopfully the guy was inocent. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. by BorgHunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Excuse me, did you say 'Trekker'? The word is 'Trekkie.' I should know; I created them." -- Gene Roddenberry
    2. Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. by AstroDrabb · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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!

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    3. Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. by b17bmbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    4. Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --

      -Turkey

    5. Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. by Maserati · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd try that, but I'm in San Francisco. The guy behind me wouldn't pay it either.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    6. Re:Hopfully the guy was inocent. by Kintanon · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
  2. Yes they have by Noishe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lawyer friend of mine who specializes in getting people off of speeding tickets does it all the time

    1. Re:Yes they have by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's an interesting specialty. He must pull down tens of dollars a day doing stuff like that.

  3. illegal access! by Barbarian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now the guy can be charged for unauthorized access of a computer network, like that guy in Florida that /. mentioned last week.

  4. Exercising a loophole != proving innocence by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Exercising a loophole != proving innocence by Reverberant · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

  5. Using the internet to prove your innocence... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Using the internet to prove your innocence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  6. Slashdoted already, text from Network Mirror by moonka · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. Easier Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?"

  8. Boing Boing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is getting to be a joke.

    The story about tusk-free elephants? On Boing Boing first.

    The story about the nine year-old geek girl? On Boing Boing first.

    The story about the Death Star subwoofer? On Boing Boing first.

    And now this story 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.

  9. Use the Uncertainty Principle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  10. Re:Hopefully the guy was innocent. by patio11 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    (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).

  11. Veracity of Evidence by rwade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  12. Speed check by Jambon · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

  13. I did. by jpellino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  14. yeah, and did you hear the one about the... by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  15. your roomate is wrong... by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've been told by numerous people, including my college roomate who went to court about a traffic ticket, that most of the time, just because someone is willing to go to the court about getting a ticket, they almost always win. Like, just being willing to spend the time to go is enough for reasonable doubt in a lot of situations.

    i have been to court many times. i went a couple times because i was given a traffic ticket, a few times with friends who were given traffic tickets, and for entertainment.

    i would say that 85% of people who go to court are convicted or plead guilty. here is why...

    the very first words the judge will tell everyone is this. "if you plead not guilty, i will send you back to your seat. i will hear all other cases first. your case will be last. we will then have the officer give his testimony, which i will consider truthful and accurate. if i convict you in a trial, then i will not give you any lenancy. if you plead guilty, and you don't have a criminal history, i will most likely give you supervision, which means your conviction is sealed and after 1 year it is removed. if you are found guilty, i will not give you supervision".

    what that means, if you get supervision, your insurance company will not know you had a ticket, and will not raise your insurance rates. that could save hundreds of dollars.

    here are other reasons people never win...

    • a judge will believe a police officer over you
    • the radar gun is considered accurate
    • the county wants your money

    My personal opinion is traffic court should be run like a real court. All judges should have law degrees, which most do not. There should be public defenders in traffic court, everyone who can not afford a lawyer should be given access to a public defender. In most cases, 10 minutes with a public defender before going in front of the judge is all that is needed, he can tell you your chances. If you are innocent, maybe he can talk you into pleading not guilty and not being intimidated. And for God's sake, judges should spend more than 20 seconds per case. I know they often put 150 people on a docket for one day, but how can a judge really hear that many cases. It is more like a long line to pay the bouncer his cover charge.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  16. Re:Hopefully the guy was innocent. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  17. It's Called Impeaching a Witness by Poeir · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  18. no no no, it is innocent until proven guilty by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  19. My Court Case... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  20. Re:Still More Ways by Osty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's another strategy: In other states, when you are pulled over you can demand to see the numbers on the radar readout. Often they'll have a lower number since they also clocked you after you hit the brakes. If you request to see the radar display, and the officer refuses, tehre's a way to get the ticket thrown out.

    Urban legend, and more importantly you have no legal right to see the radar. Skip it. Besides, they're going to lock the reading on whatever it was when they decided to pull you over. If you were braking at that time, it must've still been high enough for them to justify a stop. If the cop didn't lock the reading, he's an idiot and you can petition his ticketing records during discovery, but you're not going to get anything by asking to see the radar display. All this will accomplish is making the cop nervous. Exiting your vehicle is a big no-no unless requested by the cop, and even then it makes them nervous. I was once asked to exit my vehicle and proceed to the rear because the dumb cop had never seen a retractable spoiler before. He thought my car was broken and wanted to show me the problem. His hand was on his gun holster the entire time I was out of the car, even though I was entirely non-threatening. By exiting the car or otherwise giving the cop a hard time (saying anything other than "yes, sir" and "no, sir", telling him you'll see him in court, etc) will do nothing but erase any possible chance you had for getting off with a warning. He doesn't need to know that you're pissed off, and that you're going to fight the ticket. Let him find that out when he's subpeonaed for court.

    If your name is misspelled on the ticket, or anything is wrong about it, such as the street number, or statute number, etc. you can request for the ticket to be dismissed because the citation contains "procedural errors."

    Another urban legend. Name misspellings, hair color differences (within reason -- if you're a dark blonde and they marked brunette, it's not going to fly -- if you have bright pink hair and they marked it as black, then maybe you have a shot), address typos, etc, are not enough to get the ticket thrown. You need something major, like they wrote down a street that's blocks away from where the stop happened, or they listed your vehicle as a Chevy Suburban when you're obviously driving a Mini. Unless something is significantly wrong, don't bother. You'll just get laughed at, and your credibility will suffer.

    On your court date, you can talk to the county attorney or prosecutor, and strike a deal. Pay a court fee equal to the fine, but have the charges stayed for 12 months and if you have no similar offenses during that time, the chartges get dismissed. They do this quite often, especially if your record is relatively clear.

    They do this so often that most states have a name for it -- deferment (I probably butchered the spelling). It's law, and you can ask for it any time you like. However, you need to know your state's laws, because most (all?) of them only allow you to defer one ticket every 7 years. Deferment is a very last resort if there's nothing else you can do. It's absolutely not your first option. Also keep in mind that if you do get another infraction during the deferred period (which could last up to 2 years in some states), the previous offense comes back as a guilty (and in some states, it may not matter whether or not you're convicted of the new offense, which is why you need to know the law).

    Now here's my favorite. In many states, including MN, the basic speed law is "Safe and Reasonable." There is nothing in the statutes which says you must be obeying the posted "speed limits." Those posted signs are actually just guidelines to help you get an idea of what a good speed might be. If on your court date, you say something like, "Yes your honor, I was driving 65 mph on

  21. How to dodge a ticket by snowwrestler · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  22. Re:Hopfully the guy was innocent. by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  23. How to get out of most speeding tickets by flamingdog · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --

    ---------------------------