Trying to make sense of municipal court

rottydaddy

En-Route
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,477
Location
Newark, NJ
Display Name

Display name:
beaky
Looking for some advice here about an impending court date... a silly matter, regarding a ticket for parking when street cleaning is in effect. The fine is $55.
I'm fighting it on principle, partly because in the last 15 years I've never even seen evidence of street cleaning in front of my building (not that this helps my case, I realize), or signs (not that this matters either), but mostly because as far as I can tell, the ordinances against parking, for the purpose of street cleaning, do not specify the location and time of the ticket.
I don't retain a lawyer, and I'm not looking for one... in fact, the court did not give me an option to either hire counsel or have a public defender appointed. I guess I could bring a lawyer, but it seems unnecessary. have a plan to deal with this, and I'm just sounding it out with you all.

I had my first hearing today, and simply told the judge that I had studied the code, and believed that the ticket was in error, so I was pleading not guilty. He asked me what proof I had ... i was dismayed that the city's court could not simply reference the city's laws, but suspecting that might happen, I brought printed excerpts of relevant parts of the code. Judge had me sit and wait, then go up to talk to the prosecutor, who sneered at this flimsy stuff, asserted that he himself had paid street-cleaning tickets stuck on his car on my block, asked me if i felt exempt because I worked for the federal government (weird, but there are federal buildings up the street from my place), and said he would not accept anything that didn't come from the city clerk's office. I asked him and the judge what, other than text from the city's own website, would be adequate... the prosecutor said "I'm not going to help you with your case!" and the judge said "bring what you think is best."

:dunno:
so... back to Square One; I have a trial date in about 3 weeks, and need to prepare a brief. I intend to rattle a few cages at the clerk's office, but can anybody tell me precisely what documentation will do the trick? The facts are: ticket is for parking on a block with no parking rules signs of any kind on my side, on a Monday, at 12:46 PM. There are signs pertaining to that day and time period on my street, but only starting a few blocks north of the block in question. they say nothing about street cleaning, only "no parking or standing Mondays 12noon-4PM" and a double-ended arrow, which means from one crosswalk to the other. Meanwhile, the ordinances listed on the website do not even jibe with the signs.

In fact, I can find nothing at all in the municipal code about the area in question (the block where my building is), except Wednesdays from 8am to noon. :dunno:

I got this ticket in front of the place where I've lived for 13 of the last 15 years, and I've never seen a sign there, nor have I seen a street sweeper, except one, years ago, that turned west before getting to my block, in the wee hours of the morning. In general, the entire neighborhood is a disgrace, in terms of upkeep by the city. Cars lie abandoned there for years, the gutters are full of broken glass, used condoms, and refuse from the nearby Mcdonald's. etc., etc. I've seen city cleaning crews nearby sweeping trash and leaves into the storm drains, instead of tossing it into the large dumptruck idling nearby. None of that excuses me, I know, but my point is that I've seen no evidence of such a law for my block, which might explain my ignorance of the law (which I cannot find, LOL). Only other ticket I've ever gotten there was the ol' "within 50 feet of a stop sign" gotcha, which unfortunately is on the books. But I want to fight this one.

I figure if I lose, I'll take it to the media. This city, although obviously corrupt to the bone, is a bit sensitive about its image nowadays, so that might be worth doing. Several of my neighbors received similar tickets the same day or week, for parking on the same block. They might help me with that.

Are citizens really expected to consult the city clerk's office before parking anywhere there are no signs posted? And why should a citizen pay a fine for breaking a law that does not exist? :dunno:
 
You need to ask them what proof they have. When the 'judge' asked you what proof you have you needed to remind him that under our system the burden is on the state to prove the citation. Once he determined the burden of proof was met with admissible evidence, then the burden shifts to you. You need to understand if you had an arraignment, where you need to offer a plea, or a first appearance for trial?

NJ has different rules than many states in this arena - but if this was an arraignment you might have waived your right to a prelim - which means you missed an opportunity to move for dismissal on technical grounds. Are your parking tickets sworn to under oath? If not - you missed a good opportunity to seek dismissal.

My recollection of NJ procedure was that the municipal court judges are appointed by the local political hacks - and their job is to bring revenue in or they lose their fancy badge and exemption from traffic citations in NJ. So the judges are just as corrupt a part of the system as the political hacks. . .

I will point out that a lack of signage of a rule concerning parking is a defense in many states.

Similarly, you need to see if your city has a) working street sweepers b) employees qualified to sweep the streets and operate the trucks or c) a contract with a company to sweep streets or, finally, d) a policy on street sweeping - such as only in May or June to remove sand. You can easily see how any of those provide an affirmative defense against the citation.

If the citation is no parking between Noon and 4p on Tuesday - thats different but in that situation a lack of signage is fatal on Constitutional grounds.
 
Last edited:
The kind of stuff you found is what lawyers do - find the loopholes and drive the wedge into them.
 
If the specific area is not marked as illegal to park during that time period, then you are innocent until proven guilty - they have the burden of proof, not you. Sue them for false prosecution.
 
I got a ticket on my motorcycle. 'Improperly mounted license plate'. I called the prosecutor's office and asked them to tell me specifically what law I violated. He hung up on me. Nobody ever could tell me what law I broke so I pleaded 'not guilty'. Case dismissed. Weird.
 
I got a ticket on my motorcycle. 'Improperly mounted license plate'. I called the prosecutor's office and asked them to tell me specifically what law I violated. He hung up on me. Nobody ever could tell me what law I broke so I pleaded 'not guilty'. Case dismissed. Weird.

It'd not their job to tell you how to mount your license plate. While it seems that they should its not their job. If you were on the motorcycle at the time you ask the officer what he sees that made him stop you for an illegally mounted plate . . . if you got a ticket on the cycle while you were away from it - you could have tried to call the officer. . . . they have to have names on the citations. . .
 
Don't forget - it's not about the law; it's about the revenue. The kitty you feed when you pay a fine, feeds the municipal court system.
 
Don't forget - it's not about the law; it's about the revenue. The kitty you feed when you pay a fine, feeds the municipal court system.

Working dogs snarling and protecting their food bowl.
 
I ran into a similar situation in Albuquerque - was riding my motorcycle, alone, on a learner's permit.

Problem is - there are no specific laws on what a Motorcycle Learner's Permit does/doesn't allow. The closest thing (and what I was cited on) was driving with a permit without a licensed driver in the vehicle of an automobile. Nothing about how to comply on a motorcycle.

Initially, the prosecution tried to tell me that to be legal, I needed to be riding side by side with a licensed driver. Unfortunately for her, I pointed out that another law prohibits side by side riding. She then shifted to saying that she would go for a deferred sentence if I plead guilty.

I chickened out and accepted, but I am pretty sure I could have fought it and won.

Note - the law I was cited for violating:
NM Statues said:
66-5-19. Restricted licenses. (2007)
A. The division, upon issuing a driver’s license or a provisional license, has authority, whenever good cause appears, to impose
restrictions, including the shortening of the licensure period suitable to the licensee’s driving ability with respect to the type of or special mechanical control devices required on a motor vehicle that the licensee may operate or such other restrictions applicable to the
licensee as the division determines to be appropriate to ensure the safe operation of a motor vehicle by the licensee.
B. At age seventy-five and thereafter, the applicant shall renew the applicant’s license on a yearly basis at no cost to the applicant.
C. The division may either issue a special restricted license or may set forth such restrictions upon the usual license form.
D. The division may issue a restricted license or a restricted provisional license for driving during daylight hours only to some
visually impaired persons who fail the usual eyesight test. The health standards advisory board created pursuant to the provisions of
Section 66-5-6 NMSA 1978 shall evaluate the extent of the visual impairment and its effect on the driving ability of the applicant and,
based on its recommendations, the director may issue a restricted license under the following conditions:
(1) the applicant has no record of moving violations;
(2) the necessity of the license is shown to the satisfaction of the director; and
(3) the applicant satisfies the provisions of Section 66-5-206 NMSA 1978 relating to proof of financial responsibility.
E. The division may, upon receiving satisfactory evidence of any violation of the restrictions of the license, suspend the license, but
the licensee is entitled to a hearing as upon a suspension under Sections 66-5-1 through 66-5-47 NMSA 1978.
F. It is a misdemeanor for any person to operate a motor vehicle in any manner in violation of the restrictions imposed in a restricted license issued to the person.

Also - the applicable statute for what can or cannot be done on a learner's permit:

NM Statue said:
66-5-8. PROVISIONAL LICENSES--INSTRUCTION PERMITS--DRIVER
EDUCATION STUDENTS--TEMPORARY LICENSES.--
A. A person fifteen years and six months of age or older may apply to
the division for a provisional license if the person:
(1) has completed a driver education course approved by the
bureau that includes a DWI prevention and education component;
(2) has had an instruction permit for at least six months;
provided that thirty days shall be added to the six months for each
adjudication or conviction of a traffic violation committed during the time
the person was driving with an instruction permit;
(3) has not been cited for a traffic violation that is pending at
the time of application; and
(4) has successfully completed a practice driving component.
B. Successful completion of a practice driving component shall
include not less than fifty hours of actual driving by the applicant, including
not less than ten hours of night driving. An applicant for a provisional license
who cannot drive at night due to low nighttime vision may be exempted from
the night driving requirement of this subsection; provided that the applicant
submits to the division an ophthalmologic or optometric report from a
licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests to the applicant's visual
condition and its effect on the applicant's driving ability. The applicant's
parent or guardian shall certify that the applicant has completed the practice
driving component.
C. When operating a motor vehicle, a provisional licensee may be
accompanied by not more than one passenger under the age of twenty-one
who is not a member of the licensee's immediate family. A provisional license
entitles the licensee, while having the license in the licensee's immediate
possession, to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways between the
hours of 5:00 a.m. and midnight unless the provisional licensee is eligible for
a license restricting driving to daylight hours. A provisional licensee may
drive at any hour unless otherwise restricted as provided in this subsection
if:
(1) accompanied by a licensed driver who is twenty-one years
of age or older;
(2) required by family necessity as evidenced by a signed
statement of a parent or guardian;
(3) required by medical necessity as evidenced by a signed
statement from medical personnel;
(4) driving to and from work as evidenced by a signed
statement from the licensee's employer;
(5) driving to and from school or a religious activity as
evidenced by a signed statement of a school or religious official or a parent or
guardian; or
(6) required due to a medical emergency. 18.19 NMAC Page 5-13
D. A provisional license shall be in such form as to be readily
distinguishable from an unrestricted driver's license and shall contain an
indication that the licensee may drive without supervision.
E. A person fifteen years of age or older who is enrolled in and
attending or has completed a driver education course approved by the
bureau that includes a DWI prevention and education component may apply
to the division for an instruction permit. The division, in its discretion after
the applicant has successfully passed all parts of the examination other than
the driving test, may issue to the applicant an instruction permit. This permit
entitles the applicant, while having the permit in the applicant's immediate
possession, to drive a motor vehicle upon the public highways when
accompanied by a licensed driver who is twenty-one years of age or older,
who has been licensed for at least three years in this state or in another state
and who is occupying a seat beside the driver except in the event the
permittee is operating a motorcycle.
F. A person fifteen years of age or older who is a student enrolled in
and attending a driver education course that is approved by the bureau and
that includes both a DWI education and prevention component and practice
driving component may drive a motor vehicle on the highways of this state
even though the person has not reached the legal age to be eligible for a
driver's license or a provisional license. In completing the practice driving
component, a person may only operate a motor vehicle on a public highway
if:
(1) an approved instructor is occupying a seat beside the
person; or
(2) a licensed driver who is twenty-one years of age or older
and who has been licensed for at least three years in this state or another
state is occupying a seat beside the person.

G. The division in its discretion may issue a temporary driver's permit
to an applicant for a driver's license permitting the applicant to operate a
motor vehicle while the division is completing its investigation and
determination of all facts relative to the applicant's right to receive a driver's
license. The permit shall be in the applicant's immediate possession while
operating a motor vehicle, and it shall be invalid when the applicant's license
has been issued or for good cause has been refused.
H. A holder of an instruction permit for a motorcycle shall not carry
any other passenger while operating a motorcycle.

Emphasis mine
 
Last edited:
I just got done fighting a open burning ban ticket. I was burning in a barrel when a volunteer fire fighter pulled onto my new home construction site. He did not identify himself as a fireman, just started bitching about the burning so I told him to "leave". ;)

The police came and gave me a ticket for violating the open burning ban ( you need a permit).

I pleaded not guilty and hired a lawyer. There are no rules about burning in a barrel so the ticket was dismissed. Cost $400 for the lawyer.

If there are no rules for burning in a barrel why did they give me a ticket? :dunno:

There are little Hitlers running all over with badges.
 
Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Although only partially related, it's really more about how people like to start drama with others. My girlfriend took the dog down to the local bakery to get a bagel. She walked the dog inside on a leash with her. There were no signs on the door. Some lady got really bent out of shape about the dog claiming that it was a health hazard and was demanding to see the manager. The cashier did nothing but shrugged until the manager came out, who really could have cared less about the dog. This just enraged the lady. But seriously she was just trying to police everything and start stuff. It's annoying when people do this.

I've had it happen to me. I was carrying an umbrella in the movie theater. It was a particularly large umbrella with a metal tip. I was carrying it at my side like I would a rifle. I bent down to take a sip of water out of a water fountain. The tip was sticking out at like a 45-50 degree angle relative to my body, and it wasn't even very far. You would have to be flat-out blind not to see it. Well, some guy tells me that I need to watch it and was all stern about it as if I'm a teenager (I have a beard). I understand his concern, since he had his kids with him. But seriously look where your kids are going, because most kids are idiots. Also, if your kid walks into it, then he is an idiot and it's Darwin doing his work because the kid is not paying attention.


I had a little bit of coffee this morning. Sorry.

/rant
 
Personally, I would get a lawyer, regardless of the fine.

As others have said (including our resident legal experts), the traffic and parking enforcement system exists primarily to generate revenue. It is designed to make fighting a ticket as time-consuming and frustrating as possible, so as to discourage people from actually doing so.

I have found that it makes sense to hire an attorney to fight any and all moving violations, and some parking tickets. There are attorneys who specialize in such things and whose services are quite reasonable.

When I lived and worked in The City, getting parking tickets was an accepted cost of doing business. Just feeding the meters isn't enough: If you don't move the vehicle every so often (depending on the signage), you will be ticketed anyway, even if the meter is paid. Vendors and service providers, therefore, simply accept the parking tickets as part of doing business.

This has been the case for many, many years, and people like myself were accustomed to working the cost of parking tickets into the pricing. If I was doing a job in a place where I knew I would be ticketed, I just factored the cost of the anticipated ticket(s) into the quote, and paid the tickets without complaint. On those rare occasions when I wouldn't get a ticket, I considered it like a bonus.

The problem is that in recent years, as bureaucracies have swelled and money-hungry governments pursue revenue with the single-mindedness of crack whores looking for their fixes, incredible pressure has been brought to bear on "traffic enforcement agents" to issue more tickets. (Unlike real police officers, TEAs do in fact have ticket quotas.)

This pressure to ticket has led to something which was almost unheard of in New York City in past eras: Actually being unfairly ticketed.

Yeah, drivers have always complained about unfair tickets, but the truth is that unjustified tickets used to be very, very rare in New York City. It was, however, a time-honored tradition to ***** about tickets by creating tales to justify our illegal parking. We went into a store to get meter change, were only parked "for a minute," had to pee, or whatever. The details really didn't matter so much as the opportunity to express righteous indignation.

But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the time, we were, in fact, illegally parked, and we knew it. So after the requisite bitching to fulfill the requirements of tradition, we either quietly paid the tickets; or if we had a whole collection of them, we went down to the PVB to negotiate a better deal on the fines. Kind of a quantity discount, as it were.

That's how it was for generations; and for most of my adult life, I simply factored parking tickets into the cost of doing business. But when the TEAs started handing out tickets that really were unfair, that was a major violation of generations of tradition; and being a person who loves tradition, I was cut to the quick.

Nowadays, TEAs commonly walk down sidewalks ticketing every car that has less than five minutes or so left on the meter. They get caught once in a while by news people and ordinary citizens with cameras, and City officials pretend to be outraged; but within a week or two, things get back to normal. Discouraging revenue-generating behavior by TEAs is a pretty low priority for the city.

Another scam involves the "Muni-Meter" system. There are no individual meters on streets or in lots that use the "Muni-Meter" System. Instead, there are one or a few machines placed here or there along the street or in the lot. The driver first parks the car, then walks to the nearest machine to purchase a period of parking time. Assuming the machine actually works (which is pretty much hit-or-miss, especially in the winter), it spits out a receipt for the purchase. The driver takes the receipt, walks back to their car, and places the receipt on the dashboard.

TEAs who are behind on their quotas often will lurk on streets or in lots using the Muni-Meter system, and ticket cars while their owners are purchasing the parking time or waiting on line to do so. These tickets can be beaten, but many people don't bother because of the hassle involved. Although the tickets can, in theory, be fought by mail (and I believe online), I don't know of a single person who ever got a ticket dismissed without physically going to the PVB.

Except, of course, for those who hire lawyers.

As I said previously, back when the city only issued fair tickets, I simply paid them. But when I started getting tickets even when I was parked legally, I took offense to that. Luckily, there are lawyers who specialize in fighting parking tickets, and whose services are quite reasonable.

One would think there would be no money in fighting tickets because most of the fines are less than a hundred bucks. But parking ticket lawyers show up in court with umpteen tickets and get the bulk of them thrown out on various technicalities. Apparently, a ridiculously high percentage of tickets are defective in some way or another.

I also started fighting moving violations around the same time. As is the case with parking tickets, although we have bitched about unfair moving violations for generations, wrongful tickets were actually rare. Those who were wise would go to court and negotiate the tickets down to parkers or other vague, point-free offenses, depending on the jurisdiction. Traffic court is actually very efficient if you know the rules, the most important of which is that with the exception of DWIs or Reckless Driving (which usually would be handled in criminal court, anyway), neither the prosecutor, the judge, nor anyone else at Traffic Court gives a rat's hindquarters what you plead to. They want the money, and they'll let you plead to pretty much whatever you like in return for it.

Some jurisdictions make the process especially convenient by handling parking and moving tickets in the same court, and routinely offering everyone with a mover the opportunity to plead to a parker. Nassau County does this, but makes the practice seem more palatable to the local soccer moms by pointing out that they only let drivers plead down if they have no previous moving offenses on their licenses.

Sounds pretty responsible until you consider that if drivers are routinely offered the opportunity to plead to parkers, then they can do so as many times as they want, because the dismissed movers disappear from their driving records. My younger brother, who has a penchant for speeding, has successfully pleaded down at least a dozen such first-offenses. He's a regular down at the court. The prosecutors know him by first name and happily accept his repeated pleas to sequential first offenses.

Again, all the government cares about is the revenue; and because for many years, the vast majority of those ticketed were guilty and just wanted to avoid the points, the drivers were as happy to pay the money as the government was to receive it.

The revenue crackdown changed all that, at least in my opinion.

I hadn't gotten a ticket for a moving violation since I was in my early 20s, because I rarely violated traffic laws in any spectacular way. Adding five or ten to the speed limit was about as daring as my driving got most of the time. But on those rare occasions when I was righteously ticketed (maybe two or three times in the previous 30+ years), I went to court, did the dance, paid the fines, and walked out with a clean driving record.

The revenue crackdown changed all that, and resulted in something that had never happened to me in all my life: I got three moving violation tickets which actually were unfair, all on the same day.

I wasn't willing to do the dance and pay the fines when I was innocent. So I did some research and found a lawyer who specialized in moving violations. I think he charged $250.00 per appearance (not per ticket). When you consider how much your insurance can go up just for a single conviction, that's a bargain.

Long story short, the lawyer was able to get one ticket thrown out immediately (even before the court date), and won acquittals on the other two at court. I didn't have to show up at the zoo court, which was worth the $250.00 by itself. In fact, I never even met the attorney. I paid his fee over the phone with a debit card and mailed him the tickets. When it was all over, his secretary called me and gave me the good news.

Now had I been so inclined, I could have gone down to court and played the let's make a deal game myself, pleading to some vague charge that carried no points, and paying a fine. In fact, I probably would have saved some money that way. I think the total fines on the tickets would have been something $300.00 - $400.00, and they'll often take half on multiple tickets if you plead down before you get in front of the judge.

The thing is that I wasn't guilty. I'd rather pay a lawyer $250.00 (or more) than pay the government even $1.00 to settle fraudulent tickets issued for revenue purposes by policemen who are being pressured by the government to commit fraud. As least the lawyer is earning his money legally.

So the $250.00 was a bargain, in my opinion. I imagine the lawyer may have raised his rates since then, it having been a few years since I've needed his services. But if I were to get a ticket nowadays -- whether guilty or not -- I would get a lawyer and fight it.

The old rules by which I would have pleaded down and paid if I were guilty are history now. The government turned the game on its ears by pressuring cops to write bad tickets.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
I'm of the belief the company who handles Atlanta parking now has a scam going. Several months ago we went to a small theater in Atlanta proper. I parked the car and fed every coin I had in the meter.

We went into the theater and when everything was done came out and went to the car. My luck was the meter ran out and naturally I had a ticket on the windshield. The ticket was for $25.

My intention was to pay it online, which would incur a small service charge. My wife decided to take the matter in hand and write a check and send it off regular mail, no tracking, no delivery receipt, etc.

Several weeks later we get a notice in the mail that we've failed to pay and it will now cost $50. My wife calls them up and much to our surprise :D they say they never got the check. My wife gives them the CC number and all is done.

My guess is that anything that comes in the mail with no tracking goes straight to the shredder and later the $50 notice goes out. Of course there is no way to prove that short of getting a local TV investigative reporter to go get ticketed intentionally a few times and try it out there is no way to prove it.
 
My favorite "Gotcha!" A couple years ago I received a notice from Old Orchard Beach -- OOB -- that I had failed to pay a parking ticket assigned to Plate #9. If not paid w/i 30 days the fine which had increased to $50 would be turned over to Collections. I sent them a letter indicating there was a mistake because my #9 had not been in OOB.

I had no response until the matter was about to go to Collections. I wrote another letter, copies to numerous parties of the town, a bit more scathing. There was no response until several weeks later, informing me of the Collections now in process. At that point I was about to have some fun(not that I hadn't been).

I wrote and suggested they'd best get their fingers out of their collective butts because the only time my #9 had been in OOB was during the summer of 1961. On said occasion my father and I had attended a Louis Armstrong concert at Palace Ballroom on the OOB Pier; that I would never forget it because I got the opportunity to sit at Barrett Deems' drums and play a set with Satchmo's six-piece band.

Further, the #9 on which we were riding was a 1960 Harley Davidson motorcycle registered to father Kenneth Crute, though I've had that plate # since 1998. I additionally suggested they might want to check and see what vehicle was ticketed, because if their recent activity to dunn me had simply researched #9, Crute, in the alphabet would come up before someone else who might own a four-wheeled vehicle. Well, glory be: I never heard another word from them.

Many months later I was driving from Bath to the Brunswick Exec. Airport when a speeding Audi zoomed past me. I happened to glance at the Maine registration plate.
Maine license plate 9. I'll bet he/she was the culprit who had ignored the ticket.

:eek:)
 
Last edited:
It'd not their job to tell you how to mount your license plate. While it seems that they should its not their job. If you were on the motorcycle at the time you ask the officer what he sees that made him stop you for an illegally mounted plate . . . if you got a ticket on the cycle while you were away from it - you could have tried to call the officer. . . . they have to have names on the citations. . .

I agree.

But if they are going to charge with with something then it's their job to tell me what they are charging me with. Don't drag me to court then try to figure out something to pin on me. The cop stopped me because he said that the plate was not "where the manufacturer put it"; there is no Texas law that says that it must be so I shouldn't have been stopped in the first place.
 
Last edited:
When I lived in Jersey I got two tickets. One was for being in the left lane too long on the Garden State Parkway. Funny thing was it was Labor Day Monday, and I was going North on the GSP heading home from Cape May. Ever been on the GPS going north on Labor Day Monday. It is bumper to bumper at 5 MPH if you are lucky. Took it to Court, and the prosecuter basically laughed at me and said just pay the ticket, and save yourself $300 and avoid getting points on my license, because if I pled not guilty, I would be found guilty anyhow, and then would be responsible for a higher fine and court costs. Paid the $100 fine and went on my way. About a week later saw same prosecuter in a store, he recognized me and came up and told me off the record, that no matter what I did I was going to be found guilty, as it was the only way they could keep the local government in the black. He was worried, because he had looked me up and found out I what I did for a living and was concerned if I saw the state troopers who gave me the ticket I would not treat him well. Told him not to worry, but that I treat all scumbags the same as nonscumbags. The funny thing is about two weeks later I got a call to see a trauma patient, and who was there to interview this poor guy, you got it the trooper that gave me the ticket. He remember me, and I made sure he knew I remembered him. He asked me if he interview my patient as he was at the end of an eight hour shift and needed to get home to celebrate his wife's birthday. I told him I would see the patient and then tell him what I thought. I guess he missed his wife's birthday cause I kept him there for another 10 hours before I would let him interview the patient. What comes around goes around.

My second ticket was for waking in a no-wake zone. Too bad the nowake buoy had broken off its mooring and was nowhere to be seen. Also turned out that the rookie cop who gave me the ticket was not authorized to do so and had no clue what he was doing. But that is another story. Bottom line went to court to fight it. Had pictures and everything. Before I could even plead the judge pretty much told me that if I pleaded not guilty he would find me guilty anyhow and could even take away my driver's license. Well, to make a long story short, my testicles ain't that big, and so I plead guilty to the charge, paid a $250 fine and no points were put on my license as a gift.

Sometimes, I just do not know whether it is truly worth the time, energy, or money to fight on principle. Just ask me about my contractor fiasco.

Doug
 
Break the relevant municipal code down into its elements, anticipate the prosecution's testimony which would prove each element, and bring what you need to refute some or all of those elements (probably pictures, which you might need to share with the prosecutor before the hearing.) When addressing the judge and prosecutor very politely but firmly remind them that all elements of the offense must be present and proven to sustain a conviction. See if lack of signage is an affirmative defense or mitigating factor in your state. Also, you need to find out if in New Jersey traffic offenses are proven by a preponderence of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt (I assume the former like most states - that is an easier burden of proof for the prosecutor.)
 
One was for being in the left lane too long on the Garden State Parkway. Funny thing was it was Labor Day Monday, and I was going North on the GSP heading home from Cape May. Ever been on the GPS going north on Labor Day Monday. It is bumper to bumper at 5 MPH if you are lucky.

Yes I have. My family has a home in Wildwood Crest so I've done that crawl many times, but usually wait until a better day. Actually I fly down there now so am spared the pleasure of that crap. Anyway, both lanes are jammed, bumper to bumper, so there is no "passing lane".
 
Yes I have. My family has a home in Wildwood Crest so I've done that crawl many times, but usually wait until a better day. Actually I fly down there now so am spared the pleasure of that crap. Anyway, both lanes are jammed, bumper to bumper, so there is no "passing lane".
you're supposed to be looking down on that mess as you fly to these places
 
I've had the opposite experience. If you bother to show up for court, the officer doesn't, the clerk can't locate the records, it's almost automatically case dismissed. The system is predicated on quietly going along and paying through the mail. You don't have to make a stink, just show up and say "here your honor" when they call your name.
 
I've had the opposite experience. If you bother to show up for court, the officer doesn't, the clerk can't locate the records, it's almost automatically case dismissed. The system is predicated on quietly going along and paying through the mail. You don't have to make a stink, just show up and say "here your honor" when they call your name.

That's my experience too. As stated earlier, the system is based on people just paying. They are not really prepared to do their job and they make more money by processing checks that fighting you. If you show up with your homework done you have the upper hand.
 
you're supposed to be looking down on that mess as you fly to these places

lol. Yeah, but my route, if I fly direct takes me mostly over the edge of the Delaware Bay, but yeah, I should divert just to taunt them. :)
 
I've had the opposite experience. If you bother to show up for court, the officer doesn't, the clerk can't locate the records, it's almost automatically case dismissed. The system is predicated on quietly going along and paying through the mail. You don't have to make a stink, just show up and say "here your honor" when they call your name.

A lot of places (Albuquerque and Winston-Salem to name two of them), have changed their processes to use arraignment first. Your first "court date" as indicated on your ticket is nothing more than a visit with the DA followed by a plea entering. The DA is trying to get you to plead guilty, and will cut some serious deals to get you to. If you reject the DA's offer, you then go to the judge and enter your official "Not Guilty" plea.

Then you are issued a real court date, many months later, where if the cop doesn't show, you are scot free, and if he does, he'll lie about what happened and you're guilty either way.

Its a difference of 2 days of missed work vs. one, and usually about $100 in court fees.
 
You need to look at the parking ticket appeal rules in California! They are amazing - the outfit which issued the ticket gets to determine if the ticket is valid.

You just need to plead not guilty and then when you fill out their form for 'review' you move to dismiss for violation of the due process clause of the Constitution for having the same outfit adjudicate as issue, failure to identify sufficient facts within which to plead [the code section is rarely properly cited and there are never enough facts], for failing to identify the citing officer [they only use badge numbers and initials which are insufficient to obtain and serve a subpoena]. there are about 3 others I routinely cite because they are right in the statute and the citations never properly comply - I ALWAYS - 100% to date - have received a dismissal in the name of justice.

Its a blank form I have now that I just sign and send in with the ticket - cost? 1 cent for the paper, maybe 3 to print it and 44 cents for the stamp. They give you the envelope. Parking tickets in California are just a lazy tax. Fill out the form, look like you might actually get their cushy little revenue stream disturbed by a court - dismissed.

As for speeding tickets? California cops routinely cite you for VC 22350 - which is the 'basic speed law,' or essentially over 55. They can testify to a lower limit if it is posted. You can prevent them from testifying as to the lower limit of that speed limit has not been certified by a traffic survey in the last 5 years. Most streets have not have traffic survey in 15 or 20. You just have be willing to deal with it.

I went into court one day for one of my speeding tickets - allegedly 35 in a 25 - that was really busting it out I have to tell you. There was a 17 year old traffic survey that the County Road department said was not valid when it was done setting the 25 mph limit. Plus - the side of the street I was cited in was right on the border of the another city - the border ran right down the middle of the street. I refused all offers except dismissal at arraignment. The prosecutor set my trial date for 4.5 months hence - I smiled. I read their standard form, crossed out the waiver of speedy trial, initialed and signed it and off I went.

I appeared 136 days later for trial and when the case was called the judge asked if I was entering a plea of not guilty and I said yes, Sir, and that I had a dispositive motion. He looked at me annoyed, and said: " its traffic court you know." I said yep, and this one is dispositive. He said what is it - I said that is been more than 120 days since my arraignment and I move for a dismissal on the grounds of I have not received a speedy trial. California law requires a trial within 120 days of arraignment unless waived.

He looked confused. I asked the Clerk to open the file and look at the trial assignment form. She pulled it ouot, I said that I crossed off the waiver of a speedy trial. Prosecutor was very angry, claimed that I 'concealed from him.' I said, same prosecutor your honor as handled the arraignment, I handed him back the form - he did not look at it - its his problem.

Judge sat there - counted the days on the wall calendar and said: "Case dismissed."

Its not about knowing the law, its about knowing procedure.

the time after that the same guy [prosecutor] had it in for me but essentially the same facts - except this he had me appear in 118 days. Cop does not show up [I know the guy - he lives down the street from me]. so he calls the case and tries to call a witness - who is not there - and then tries to move for a continuance of the case since the officer was not present. I know that if he gets a continuance as opposed to a simple reschedule for lack of a witness the 120 rules does not apply. So - being a lawyer I object. The Judge is like- why is that a problem. I point out the 120 day rule - that I don't waive speedy trial. and I'm ready to go.

He tries to reschedule for the next day and I'm like - he has no idea if the cop is available, your honor you want me to waste half a day on the off chance that this cop might not be working tomorrow? The judge tells him that he'll award sanctions if he can't proceed tomorrow at 9a. This guy is actually inexperienced enough to want to nail me so he takes the judge up on it- and actually gets the cop into court the next day. Believe it or not.

We appear and he is smiling at me so happy that he's gonna get me now. Cop goes up on the stand - testifies that he caught me doing 30 in 25 [yeah these are real tickets, I tell ya] and that he participated himself in the traffic survey 2 years earlier. Wow == greart job Officer Friendly! 2 points for the Prosecutor.

I stand up and ask one question: "\Officer Friendly, what city was I in when I was cited?' - yep same issue as the last ticket, different part of town.

He looks a mite confused so I offer: "It wasn't Pomona was it?"

He doesn't answer. "Well, the City border runs right down the middle of the street doesn't it?" Prosecutor bob jumps up and objects on the grounds of hearsay or foundation or something.

I say, hey, its cross examination. and the court needs to take judicial notice of where the city boundary is - the County rule is that absent an agreement to the contrary its in the middle of the street when the street is a border.

Officer Friendly sees the trap sprung under him and so does Prosecutor Bob. "Your honor, I'd like a 24 hour continuance to research the matter and present new evidence."

By now the judge is smiling. He knows the Prosecutor is done. He asks the cop the question the Prosecutor should have . . . "which side was Mr. Farrell on?' The cop truthfully answers, like it says in the ticket, "on the Pomona side, your honor."

He then says: "I think you're done for the day on this one Jerry, but instead of ruling against you I'll give you the chance." And doesn't take it but renews his request for 24 hours. By 'taking the chance' it was to dismiss the citation in the interests of justice so it does not count toward his conviction percentage - which is most of these kids get ranked and rated so they can move on to do something other than traffic.

Judge: "I find for the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the citation was made on the basis of a speed trap as defined in VC . . . . .]

Like someone else said - break down the citation and then spend 10 minutes on the Internet researching defenses to that type of citation in your state, commonwealth or Louisiana.
 
Last edited:
NJ muni. court is all about the money. I practiced in NJ for 10 years and the first time I went to muni. court, the lack of justice was pathetic.

To the previous poster, what school did you attend?
 
Yes I have. My family has a home in Wildwood Crest so I've done that crawl many times, but usually wait until a better day. Actually I fly down there now so am spared the pleasure of that crap. Anyway, both lanes are jammed, bumper to bumper, so there is no "passing lane".

Huh. When I was stationed in Cape May, I lived at 220 E. Cresse Ave, Wildwood Crest. If you ever go by there and find an old Honda CB500, you can keep it.
 
Huh. When I was stationed in Cape May, I lived at 220 E. Cresse Ave, Wildwood Crest. If you ever go by there and find an old Honda CB500, you can keep it.

Damn, might be worth heading up there to look for it. Those things bring good money to collectors.... according to American Picker dude. :lol:
 
Huh. When I was stationed in Cape May, I lived at 220 E. Cresse Ave, Wildwood Crest. If you ever go by there and find an old Honda CB500, you can keep it.


Cresse is where Wildwood Crest starts and Wildwood ends. The boardwalk also starts there. I'll look for your bike when I go down there soon to do damage assessment/work. :D

We used to sneak onto the Coast Guard beach as kids just by walking or swimming around the chain link fence that went out into the water. Prolly get shot today.
 
You mean I just wasted three and a half years of my life in law school?

yeah . . . you will discover that if you litigate that you will win more cases procedurally and setting them up via motion for summary judgment through discovery than you will ever win at trial ... .
 
is there still a boardwalk in Wildwood?

After monster super storm of the next centuries Sandy?
 
Last edited:
Of course it seems simple when you have studied it intensively.
I know multiple approaches to treating malignant hypertension when the patient is allergic to one of the main drug classes, such as Beta Blockers. or whatever. Why? Because I have studied it (almost daily)
But, I don't know jack (or Jill) about court procedure technicalities, precedent cases in municipality boundaries, etc.
Which is why would I hire a guy, such as CP, to handle traffic citations - and hope he would hire me to manage his malignant hypertension.

In my case, I simply stay away from large municipalities that are desperate to gouge monies from everyone who enters their boundaries. Let em go bankrupt is my motto.

An interesting point of law is the HIPPA requirement of patient confidentiality, such that the chart hanging on the exam room door has to be backwards so people walking down the all cannot read the name. Except in my town the people driving by on the road know who is in the office when they see the cars in the lot.
"Hey doc, I saw Frieda's car outside yesterday. Did she tell you she's been drinking again?"
So CP, now I need an enclosed parking lot to comply with HIPPA? ;)
 
Nah Denny - I think you are ok. The HIPAA rules are just much annoying crap. All they do is add one more piece of paper to the stack.

I don't do traffic - except for myself and my wife. My son is on his own - he needs to learn to drive safely so I don't represent him - and he hates me for it! :D

Tell me - should I be rotating my hypertension drugs to avoid become desensitized to their effects? My last BP was 118/72 but I've been in quinapril for 20 years!
 
Nah Denny - I think you are ok. The HIPAA rules are just much annoying crap. All they do is add one more piece of paper to the stack.

Some of it yes. But working for a third-party that may handle your medical data, I bet you want my security practices audited.
 
Back
Top