Speeding camera ticket

[Matthew]

Here's a federal court opinion:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/michaelelli2.pdf

Guy gets a ticket in Missouri ( St. Louis suburb ) for flashing his headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap. Ticket is for having illegal flashing lights (flashing lights are allowed on school buses and other vehicles, for example).

He says he wants to plead not guilty, judge tries to tear him a new one. Later, charge is dismissed.

>>>
When Plaintiff appeared in municipal court, as directed on the citation, he was advised by the municipal judge that the standard punishment imposed in the City of Ellisville for using headlamps to communicate the presence of a speed-trap is a $1,000.00 fine. When Plaintiff asserted to the municipal judge that he wanted to plead not guilty because he did not believe flashing headlamps violated § 375.100, the judge became agitated and asked Plaintiff if he had ever heard of “obstruction of justice.”
<<<

It's an interesting read.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_a6d677f1-baf3-5347-bf25-503520dca8cf.html

 

[denverpilot]

"Obstruction of Justice" and "Resisting Arrest" are the favorite whipping boys of the criminal justice system when it can't find anything else to charge someone with. They both play into the minds of jurors who associate both phrases with "Bad bad boy or girl!" from mommy and daddy.

Who would ever want to support someone who "Obstructed Justice"? Or "Resisted Arrest"? Surely they're guilty if they did that...

Like someone said... Jury Nullification. Which is mainly why most States throw out your right to a Jury trial in traffic cases. Most real world drivers would happily toss out cases left and right for all but egregious and truly dangerous infractions, in return for their case also getting tossed when the time came, if given the opportunity to do so.

"The defendant was five MPH over and nobody was on the road at 10 PM. The jury says Case Dismissed, Your Honor."

 

[wsuffa]

"Obstruction of Justice" and "Resisting Arrest" are the favorite whipping boys of the criminal justice system when it can't find anything else to charge someone with. They both play into the minds of jurors who associate both phrases with "Bad bad boy or girl!" from mommy and daddy.

Who would ever want to support someone who "Obstructed Justice"? Or "Resisted Arrest"? Surely they're guilty if they did that...

Like someone said... Jury Nullification. Which is mainly why most States throw out your right to a Jury trial in traffic cases. Most real world drivers would happily toss out cases left and right for all but egregious and truly dangerous infractions, in return for their case also getting tossed when the time came, if given the opportunity to do so.

"The defendant was five MPH over and nobody was on the road at 10 PM. The jury says Case Dismissed, Your Honor."

You forgot "disorderly conduct"

 

[FastEddieB]

The one I thought was borderline unconstitutional was "Loitering and Prowling".

In Florida:


856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.


I never understood why a citizen should have to explain why he was "loitering" anywhere. It was a tool, but I always felt weird enforcing it, and rarely did.

 

[denverpilot]

I never understood why a citizen should have to explain why he was "loitering" anywhere. It was a tool, but I always felt weird enforcing it, and rarely did.

Some municipalities in Colorado have "Loitering" laws on the books which are still based on the amount of cash one has on their person. Usually tourist traps/towns. Golden, CO for one.

The assumption is that if you have no money on you, you have no reason to be out in public downtown. A horrible horrible law.

I doubt it's enforced much, but I hate laws like that. They're tossed on as "add ons" whenever someone annoys the wrong LE person. Whether they're really a "criminal" or not.

 

[gismo]

Let's assume @Sundancer is correct and municipalities are out to maximize revenue with their silly little signs.

Given that, is it not wise to comply with the signs for no other reason than to avoid the consequences?

Perhaps because of the likelihood of getting run over by the 95% of drivers who regularly run 5-10 mph over the limit?

 

[Ravioli]

Perhaps because of the likelihood of getting run over by the 95% of drivers who regularly run 5-10 mph over the limit?

If it were true that people are speeding because of peer pressure or perceived safety then it seems logical that more people complying with the limits would cause people to not speed because of peer pressure or perceived safety.

 

[gismo]

If it were true that people are speeding because of peer pressure or perceived safety then it seems logical that more people complying with the limits would cause people to not speed because of peer pressure or perceived safety.

The only way a slower driver can "cause people not to speed" is by blocking traffic. I think you'll find that drivers who attempt to "enforce" speed limits by blocking traffic in the left lanes with no one ahead of them cause nothing but road rage. BTW, many if not most states have laws forbidding such actions, so if you truly feel compelled to obey all traffic laws to the letter, you'd best stay out of the way of "speeders".

 

[Ravioli]

The only way a slower driver can "cause people not to speed" is by blocking traffic. I think you'll find that drivers who attempt to "enforce" speed limits by blocking traffic in the left lanes with no one ahead of them cause nothing but road rage. BTW, many if not most states have laws forbidding such actions, so if you truly feel compelled to obey all traffic laws to the letter, you'd best stay out of the way of "speeders".

You have misinterpreted my statement. I didn't say "A slower driver." I am suggesting compliance be the norm rather than the exception. And I was using the horse**** excuse for speeding as the reason not to.

Don't need another thread about the laws... covered that here many times before.

 

[gismo]

You have misinterpreted my statement. I didn't say "A slower driver." I am suggesting compliance be the norm rather than the exception. And I was using the horse**** excuse for speeding as the reason not to.

Don't need another thread about the laws... covered that here many times before.

If the posted limits were strictly enforced they would for the most part be "complied with" but they're not and the result is that in many places 5-10mph is the "norm", not the exception. Wishing it were otherwise may be futile but certainly an acceptable choice. I do admit I interpreted your post "seems logical that more people complying with the limits would cause people to not speed" to suggest that you believed i t was OK to "promote" compliance by driving slower than the prevailing traffic speed and thus holding up would be "speeders". My apologies if that wasn't what you meant.

My original post was intended to be rather tongue in cheek response to the notion (that you may or may not have been suggesting) that we should obey every posted speed limit when it's clear that some are implemented for revenue rather than safety reasons and we can generally get away with avoiding the "tax" without driving at a speed that seems unreasonable.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Unfortunately, many local governments have set up their revenue/spend structure to be dependent upon ticket revenue -- which is often a frighteningly large portion of their operating funds. If one day the faithful citizens suddenly decided to obey the speed limits, a new source of infractions would need to be quickly found to maintain solvency.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

1st grab from an article in the Denver Post. Many more examples are published. Just pick a state:

http://www.denverpost.com/2015/05/15/limit-cities-reliance-on-revenue-from-traffic-fines/

"The tiny town of Campo near the Oklahoma border collects a whopping 93 percent of its funding from traffic tickets.

Mountain View in the Denver metro area derives 53 percent of its revenue from tickets, and Morrison collects 52 percent.

Those numbers are too high.

Mountain View is home to only 518 people and encompasses only six blocks.

Yet, in 2013, the $621,099 raised in citation revenue paid for more than half of the town’s budget. Many of those tickets were for seat belt violations and for drivers having an obstructed view, such as anything hanging from a rearview mirror.

The town of Morrison, with 428 people, has a police department of more than 20 officers. Traffic fines in 2013 brought in more than $1.15 million — 52 percent of its budget. And the vast majority of tickets are issued at a single spot, according to 9News, “about four miles from the main part of town … just within the city limits” on Highway 285.

It’s a speed trap, in other words."​

 

[Zeldman]

It used to be in Texas that the agency writing the ticket could only keep $2.00 on every ticket written. The rest went to the state to be divided between all agencies. That closed down the majority of agencies that were only in existence to gain revenue by writing tickets.

 

[paflyer]

When Plaintiff asserted to the municipal judge that he wanted to plead not guilty because he did not believe flashing headlamps violated § 375.100, the judge became agitated and asked Plaintiff if he had ever heard of “obstruction of justice.”

"Ever heard of 'federal civil rights lawsuit?'"

 

[Anymouse]

It used to be in Texas that the agency writing the ticket could only keep $2.00 on every ticket written. The rest went to the state to be divided between all agencies. That closed down the majority of agencies that were only in existence to gain revenue by writing tickets.

A town near me is getting into a bit of hotwater over their speeding tickets.

https://www.usnews.com/news/arkansa...ays-damascus-violated-arkansas-speed-trap-law

I got pulled over there a few years back. The officer thought I was an out of towner due to my Florida plates. He tried giving me a BS line saying that the governor ordered them to crack down on speeders due to the number of fatalities on that stretch of road. He had no answer when I asked just how many fatal accidents there were, since there were none.

 

[Clark1961]

After

1st grab from an article in the Denver Post. Many more examples are published. Just pick a state:

http://www.denverpost.com/2015/05/15/limit-cities-reliance-on-revenue-from-traffic-fines/

"The tiny town of Campo near the Oklahoma border collects a whopping 93 percent of its funding from traffic tickets.

Mountain View in the Denver metro area derives 53 percent of its revenue from tickets, and Morrison collects 52 percent.

Those numbers are too high.

Mountain View is home to only 518 people and encompasses only six blocks.

Yet, in 2013, the $621,099 raised in citation revenue paid for more than half of the town’s budget. Many of those tickets were for seat belt violations and for drivers having an obstructed view, such as anything hanging from a rearview mirror.

The town of Morrison, with 428 people, has a police department of more than 20 officers. Traffic fines in 2013 brought in more than $1.15 million — 52 percent of its budget. And the vast majority of tickets are issued at a single spot, according to 9News, “about four miles from the main part of town … just within the city limits” on Highway 285.

It’s a speed trap, in other words."​

I used to commute on 285. The speed trap is/was well known but you know how some people are they just have to speed. The speed trap location is actually not bad since it is at the entrance to a canyon and the road is somewhat less than straight starting about a mile or so up the canyon. Slowing folks down there is a good idea.