100 in a 45 speeding

[palmbeachvette76]

I think Rich is onto something, with as many news reports of road rage and false impersonations of Police officers by regular citizens you could claim you didn't know for sure if the Durango was real or a lunatic so you put your safety first. A good traffic defense attorney should be able to play that up and get you out of it placing blame on the police tactics used.

 

[vett boy]

Unmarked car ,thats so unfair.Where's the sport in that ?

 

[Shadow]

I think Rich is onto something, with as many news reports of road rage and false impersonations of Police officers by regular citizens you could claim you didn't know for sure if the Durango was real or a lunatic so you put your safety first. A good traffic defense attorney should be able to play that up and get you out of it placing blame on the police tactics used.

Sounds reasonable except for this:

Judges response: Did you call 911?
If you were in fear, why didn't you?
Without that, defense tends to falter a but.

Happen in Florida on the road to my old house.He was in a unmark Durango and was right on my butt so i floored the HHR and he Pace me at over 100 but said i was doing 100 mph.I had a safe driving record until this crap :banghead:

This is one of the huge issues I have with non-traditional unmarked cars.

If it's a crown vic, malibu, Charger, Malibu, or other vehicle regularly associated with law enforcement, then there's a presumption.

Some moron in an Durango tailgaiting me makes me concerned that they're intoxicated, pissed off at the world, or some other issue that may place my safety and that of my family in jeopardy.

Alone, I've been known to slow down rapidly (not a brake check, just a rapid, controlled slowdown).
You'd be surprised how quickly they'll get off your ass

I'd also diall 911 in a skinny minute and the call would go somethiung like this:

This XXXX I'm a retired LEO and I'm on XXX road XX bound, and have some moron in a Durango right on my bumper. I've sped up to get away and he/she keeps tailgating me.

Could you have a unit respond in my direction.

I'm armed and I'm not sure what this persons intentions are, but from thier driving habits, they're either intoxicated or up to no good...I'll stay on the line until a unit arrives..."

If this turd turns out to be a LEO, we're going to have a powow with his/her supervisor or shift commander immediately and view the dash cam:thumbsup:

If he was a traffic car, get an attorney and ask the court for permission to subpoena the in car camera. That'll show how close he was to you. Remember though, it could always bite you in the ass.,

 

[Rich Z]

Sounds reasonable except for this:

Judges response: Did you call 911?
If you were in fear, why didn't you?
Without that, defense tends to falter a but.

Surprising as it may seem, not everyone has a cell phone with them 24/7. And of those that do, some will certainly have one with a dead battery.....

 

[Z06 Rocket]

If the department is aggressive enough to use an unmarked Durango then I would wager a lot that there is a video camera in the car as well. The super stealth vehicles like pick up trucks, SUV's, and non traditional cars are advertised as "aggressive driver enforcement" which means there is a camera on board for evidence purposes. The officer is well aware the video is there so I doubt he tailgated you to the point that it would look dangerous on video. One other point the officer might make is that before putting on the lights they move closer to the vehicle they intend to stop to get a good look at the tag or occupants for safety as the stop occurrs. If you saw him getting ready to hit the lights and punched the go pedal at the same time then it would be a plausible excuse as to why he was close to you.

If there was a video then maybe you really don't want the judge to see it first hand...... It's one thing to have a mental image of the 100 mph in a 45 zone, but a whole other problem to actually see it yourself. Judges are human, and if you get a hard azz you may see him turn red around the collar as he gets pissed looking at the video while he wishes that he could have written you the ticket as well. If you get that guy then its adios because he might feel that you got off easy by not going to jail, and in the process levy a HUGE fine against you. Speeding by itself is not a crime, but if the video shows other cars/pedestrians/bicycles etc etc then reckless could be considered.

It's up to you regarding a lawyer. In my opinion theres nothing they can do for you. You stepped in it pretty big here. Speak to a lawyer in a free 1st consultation to get a few pointers that you can use yourself, and save the $$$ for the big-ol fine headed your way. I know of a kid near my neck of the woods caught doing 80-45 zone, and that ticket holder was fined $750.00 !!

 

[palmbeachvette76]

Sounds reasonable except for this:

Judges response: Did you call 911?
If you were in fear, why didn't you?
Without that, defense tends to falter a but.

oh sure throw that in my face :lmao: didn't think of that, good catch.

He could say "No Judge I didn't call 911, I don't have a car phone and anyway I heard talking on the phone and driving is dangerous and illegal"

"I was concentrating on driving while in fear of my life"

 

[Shadow]

Surprising as it may seem, not everyone has a cell phone with them 24/7. And of those that do, some will certainly have one with a dead battery.....

Sounds like a poor planning issue to me.

Today, with all the no credit check, pay as you go, cheap ass plans out there, there's absolutely no reason not to have one for an emergency on the road:NoNo:
What are you going to use to call 911 or AAA? Smoke signals?:lmao:

And I didn't say 24/7:NoNo:
When 'm in the car, I have the phone, period.
It's usually on a a hands free mount with the blue tooth or speaker phone on.

Semper Paratus!

 

[Shadow]

oh sure throw that in my face :lmao: didn't think of that, good catch.

He could say "No Judge I didn't call 911, I don't have a car phone and anyway I heard talking on the phone and driving is dangerous and illegal"

"I was concentrating on driving while in fear of my life"

:lmao:That's the way it goes when you're used to working both sides of the fence.:lmao:

Spent most of my life writing tickets and putting arses in jail, then spent another 15 years assisting the attorney's in beating the cases in court
It's not all that difficult to punch holes in a lot of cases, when you have minutes, hours, sometimes months, to do so.

The officer has seconds to minutes in many cases to make the same decision.
It's not really a fair system:nonod: but slanted toward the violator/defendant for obvious reasons.

I don't take it personally, it's just a job. Keeps the scales "balanced."

I'm good at what I do, I just have an aversion to getting people out of jail that need to be there!
One of the reasons I never became a bondsman.
When the bounty hunting laws changed in Fl. to require the bondsman ticket, I said adios:wavey:

Feck 'em!

If they're in there, they probably need to stay there!
I'll work on thier defense once they hire a lawyer!

Thank God, most of my work is Civil now!!:yesnod:

 

[Shadow]

If the department is aggressive enough to use an unmarked Durango then I would wager a lot that there is a video camera in the car as well. The super stealth vehicles like pick up trucks, SUV's, and non traditional cars are advertised as "aggressive driver enforcement" which means there is a camera on board for evidence purposes. The officer is well aware the video is there so I doubt he tailgated you to the point that it would look dangerous on video. One other point the officer might make is that before putting on the lights they move closer to the vehicle they intend to stop to get a good look at the tag or occupants for safety as the stop occurrs. If you saw him getting ready to hit the lights and punched the go pedal at the same time then it would be a plausible excuse as to why he was close to you

Good points. Even in my Scion, sometimes larger vehicles look closer than they really are. In the vette, it was magnified several times by the height differential between that and a truck. The OP in an HHR is going to have a similar perception.

The police vehicle almost definately going to have a cam if they're at all interested in surviving court on some of these "aggressive driving" charges.

Now, just because the officer is aware there's a camera, doesn't negate the idiot factor.
We've all seen it over and over again over tha last few years+
Officers doing absolutely stupid things on camera!!
In the jails, on traffic stops. We're all human, and sometimes, the idiot comes out in all of us. Sometimes, you just get so complacent with it, that you forget it's there
So don't discount the possibility of using it, just make sure you know what's on there.
This is where an attorney comes in.

They can request athorization from the court (yes, as of the past several years, you now have to gain "permission" to preview the evidence against you or depose an officer on a traffic charge:nonod:-almost as bad a system as the Federal "you're guilty until proven innocent" system:thumbsdown to subpoena the officer and/or a copy of the video/dvd.
Once you review it, your attorney can always change your plea to nolo contendre and plea for a reduction in costs/fine amount, advanced driving school, or a combination of all the aforementioned.
As for the officers excuse for tailgaiting you, it would really depend on the distance and duration as to the legitimacy of his statement and yours.
If he pulled the same crap I've seen here over and over again, extremely close to the car ahead, even at lower speeds, for inordinate distances, then there's a problem with his story.
An officer should have at least "corrected" vision capable of reading a tag from a reasonable distance. As well, unless the car is blacked out by tint or design, there's no reason he/she can't see what they need to see in broad daylight, from a safe distance. You have headlights for nightime

If he shot up close for a moment, took a quick look, then backed away, different story altoghether.
Plausibility will really depend on the officers statement. The DVD/Video will support or deny that information.

If there was a video then maybe you really don't want the judge to see it first hand...... It's one thing to have a mental image of the 100 mph in a 45 zone, but a whole other problem to actually see it yourself. Judges are human, and if you get a hard azz you may see him turn red around the collar as he gets pissed looking at the video while he wishes that he could have written you the ticket as well. If you get that guy then its adios because he might feel that you got off easy by not going to jail, and in the process levy a HUGE fine against you. Speeding by itself is not a crime, but if the video shows other cars/pedestrians/bicycles etc etc then reckless could be considered.

Another good set of points:thumbsup:
If you had activiated the goofy button and were zipping through a residential area with kids, pedestrians, present, or where the roads were narrow and crowded, you might not want him/her to see it. They're probaly going to anyway if you go to court.
On the other hand, you may get the judge that has his/her own personal vendetta with traffic and "stealth" patrol vehicles.
We had one here in Tampa for years. He would toss out cases right and left because of his own personal issues with the way enforcement was being conducted. This could work in your favor.
I'm glad he's gone!

My guess is, the fine or cost in general, is going to be HUGE anyway.

It's up to you regarding a lawyer. In my opinion theres nothing they can do for you. You stepped in it pretty big here. Speak to a lawyer in a free 1st consultation to get a few pointers that you can use yourself, and save the $$$ for the big-ol fine headed your way. I know of a kid near my neck of the woods caught doing 80-45 zone, and that ticket holder was fined $750.00 !!

I'll disagree hugley with this statement.
It's a standdard LEO perspective (I've regurgitated it more than once) but not necessarily the bottom line.

That "big ole fine" doesn't necessarily have to be.
Regardless, you are going to pay someone. The county/state, or the attorney.
In reality, probably a bit of both.

These fines and additional charges are out of control!:thumbsdown:

I'd rather give my $$$ to an attorney than the state/county/city!

I'm not justifying what occurred at all.
I just believe that taxation without representation is illegal.
I'm not happy with the way our legislators have chosen to hide behind law enforcement, public safety, and various pork barrel projects, to raise taxes by calling them "fees":thumbsdown:

And anyone who thinks a lawyer who specializes in traffic, who is before the same judges day in and day out, and is competent in his/her field, can't be a benefit to an offender, has never stepped foot in a traffic court.
Everyone that has ever been in traffic court will know what i'm talking about.:thumbsup:

Lawyers who specialize in these sort of defenses (criminal traffic/DUI/"aggressive driving", et al), spend countless hours in traffic seminars, research, review of case law and findings of courts outside the jurisdictiion, and form groups to develop ways to combat traffic tickets.
They probably spend far more time in research than the officer who gets certified and goes out writing tickets.

And the good ones, not the ticket defense "mills", will tell you up front, if there's a chance in hell or not that they can help you.

If not, do your mandatory appearance, make your ammends and see what you can get out of the deal?

If all went well on scene, the officer may be more inclined to go along with the state if the judge wishes to reduce the fine/charge.

There's always the chance, however slim, that the officer won't appear. then you walk.

Is the political system still alive in most counties in Florida? You bet it is.
On the other hand, you'll spend as much or more on the attorney as you would paying the ticket.
But if it saves your DL, some points or an elevated charge, then it's worth every $$$ spent.

If it were me or one of my family members, after the shouting was over, I'd go hire the attorney:thumbsup:

 

[Rich Z]

Sounds like a poor planning issue to me.

Today, with all the no credit check, pay as you go, cheap ass plans out there, there's absolutely no reason not to have one for an emergency on the road:NoNo:
What are you going to use to call 911 or AAA? Smoke signals?:lmao:

And I didn't say 24/7:NoNo:
When 'm in the car, I have the phone, period.
It's usually on a a hands free mount with the blue tooth or speaker phone on.

Semper Paratus!

Yeah, that's ALL 9T8Vette would have needed to do to make matters worse. Searching around for the cell phone while being stressed out by a tailgater and trying to punch in a number while accelerating, and then get wrapped around a telephone pole.

Personally, I believe that cell phone use while driving is just damned foolish. People need to give their UNDIVIDED attention to driving. Didn't we have enough automobile accidents BEFORE cell phones got thrown into the equation? There is already too much going on around them that they need to pay attention to without the further distraction of a phone conversation. Yeah, have a cell phone for emergencies, but pull off of the road to use it. And, IMHO, any judge (or anyone else for that matter) who would recommend that a driver try to use a cell phone while in a high stress situation while driving should be whacked alongside the head by a two-by-four.

 

[Bob K]

There's always the chance, however slim, that the officer won't appear. then you walk.

Is the officer required to be there and if so is he reimbursed for his time?

 

[Shadow]

Yeah, that's ALL 9T8Vette would have needed to do to make matters worse. Searching around for the cell phone while being stressed out by a tailgater and trying to punch in a number while accelerating, and then get wrapped around a telephone pole.

Why does everything need to end in disaster?

Personally, I believe that cell phone use while driving is just damned foolish. People need to give their UNDIVIDED attention to driving. Didn't we have enough automobile accidents BEFORE cell phones got thrown into the equation? There is already too much going on around them that they need to pay attention to without the further distraction of a phone conversation. Yeah, have a cell phone for emergencies, but pull off of the road to use it.

Ok, lets try this again.
If you place your phone on a dash/console holder, utilize a bluetooth device or speakerphone, use voice activation and select 1 number dialing for 911, there's no SEARCHING for the phone or dialing for the number.

FWIW, my entire bluetooth earpiece, dash mount holder, cost me a grand total of approximately $175.00, the bulk of which was spent on a high end Motorola earpiece.

I pieced the dash mount together from two separate packages.
A weighted dash GPS mount base that can be easily transferred from vehicle to vehicle, boat or??? and a window/dash suction mount types designed for my phone.
I don't like window mounts as they have a tendency to obstruct vision, and the suction dash mount wont work on my type of dash (too grainey).

If I'd just used the dash/window mount, it'd been about $40.00 less.

Everything is voice activated, the phone is "line of sight" with the road, and I rarely have to remove my hands from the wheel:thumbsup:

I can check my email at redlights, respond via voice command, and when it's time to roll, focus on the business at hand (driving) and essentially never take my eyes off the road.:thumbsup:

Why do you think that the states that have outlawed cell phones while driving, have authorized thier use with hands free devices? (aside from the political pressure put upon them by the cell phone companies that is).

As for "distractions" that arguement is as old as the ALPS and as full of holes as Swiss cheese:rofl1:

There's no more distraction to talking with an earpiece or speaker phone system, than there is having a passenger/kids in the car:NoNo:

It could reasonably be concluded that there's probably more with a passenger since in many cases, there's more interaction and a better likelyhood that you're going to at times look at your passenger when speaking or being spoken to.
I don't have anyone to look at and no one vying for my attention when i'm alone in the car on the phone.

I will "assume" however, that since you're so strongly opposed to distractions, that you'll forego the radio, CD/DVD player, GPS and other "distractions" in all your vehicles.
You will only ride solo (or not allow Connie to speak...right:rofl1 and if you do have a radio/CD player, etc, you'll never change the settings unless at a full stop or off the road.
Right?

Pretty silly now that we think about it, isn't it?

And, IMHO, any judge (or anyone else for that matter) who would recommend that a driver try to use a cell phone while in a high stress situation while driving should be whacked alongside the head by a two-by-four

Well, I guess I fall into that "or anyone else for that matter" category?

I just hope that whomever is wielding that 2x4 comes up from behind me quickly and acts so violently as to remove me from consciousness immediately.

Otherwise, they're not going to fare well at all:reddevil::NoNo::rofl1:

FWIW, I've sat through the endless taffic court hearings, both as a Deputy Sheriff, Police Officer and a P.I.

Everytime I think I've "heard it all", some moron comes up with one a new one.

I've heard the arguments and the attorney's pleadings.

I've heard the judges make comments just like that (did you call the police if you were scared?) and I've listened to the verdicts (both ways) that made absolutely no sense and left everyone in the courtroom (cops, attorneys, spectators and defendants) going WTF just happened?

I'm not just spouting off personal opinions, they're based on factual cases.

Sometimes I wish I'd have kept better notes. Some of this stuff would make the most humorous reading you can imagine.

I used to have a very high regard for the legal system and it's officers (attorney's, judges, magistrates).
Not so much any more.
If you think the judiciary is "smart", think again. Most are just politcally motivated with enough clout and aspirations to get elected/appointed.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this all turns out?

 

[Shadow]

Is the officer required to be there and if so is he reimbursed for his time?

Yes, he/she is the states witness.
If they're off duty, they're entitled to reimbursement by the state (standard witness fee-somewhere in the range of a whopping $10.00 =/-)

It depends on the agency.

The Sheriff here used to require us to relinquish our fee to the county and take comp/court time instead.

Some agencies allow the officers to keep it.

 

[Bob K]

Yes, he/she is the states witness.
If they're off duty, they're entitled to reimbursement by the state (standard witness fee-somewhere in the range of a whopping $10.00 =/-)

It depends on the agency.

The Sheriff here used to require us to relinquish our fee to the county and take comp/court time instead.

Some agencies allow the officers to keep it.

Thanks.

I did agree with Rich's post and also with your last one. Half the time I see someone make a stupid move in traffic they're holding a cell phone. Usually just talking on it. It's like they're lost in the conversation and are oblivious to what's around them. They would probably be equally lost if talking to a passenger.

 

[Shadow]

Thanks.

I did agree with Rich's post and also with your last one. Half the time I see someone make a stupid move in traffic they're holding a cell phone. Usually just talking on it. It's like they're lost in the conversation and are oblivious to what's around them. They would probably be equally lost if talking to a passenger.

You're welcome.
And for the record, although I'm jerkin' his chain a bit, the fact of the matter is, I agree with some of what he's saying as well:thumbsup:

I'm on the road sometimes 100+ miles a day, and I see a lot of absolutely brain dead moves out there.
When i get along side them, there's usually a cell phone stuck in thier hand and glued to thier ear.

I agree with restricting hand held usage and there's documented evidence to prove that such useage is dangerous.

There's nothing presently available that can definatively support hands free useage is any more dangerous than having a passenger, drinking a soft drink or changing the settings on your CD player.

I see a ton of LEO's on the phone daily, in the course of thier duties, and every damed one of them are on a hand held set!

If it's that dangerous, mandate hands free use only and be done with it.

Then again, most agencies have in car computers. think those haven't been responsible for a crash or 2 or 20?:lmao:But it'll never read that way on the crash report.

The bottom line is, you still can't fix stupid and you can't legislate common sense.

What we need is less government control of our lives and more personal responsibility for our actions.

I don't need some suit telling me I can't use the phone in my car.
At the same time, I don't need to be looking to sue the cell phone company if I'm DWHUA and have a crash.

Personal responsibility 101.

 

[Bob K]

You're welcome.

and I see a lot of absolutely brain dead moves out there.
When i get along side them, there's usually a cell phone stuck in thier hand and glued to thier ear.

I agree with restricting hand held usage and there's documented evidence to prove that such useage is dangerous.

Exactly what I'm seeing. I thought hands free was the law?

I know with a 'smart phone' you either need voice dialing or get off the road to place your call. Touch screens are almost impossible while driving.

 

[9T8Vette]

Well, I guess you could claim you thought the guy was a maniac or something the way he was dogging your tail and you just wanted to get away from him. Say you feared for your life because of his aggressive and antagonistic driving. I guess if it's OK to shoot someone who puts you in fear for your life, then just simply trying to escape from him because you have the means to do so, should be a piece of cake. :shrug01:

Get an attorney and try to put HIM on the defensive. Reasonable doubt and all that.....

my old nieghbor is a deputy sherffic of sarasota and said that north port cops r known for pushing u in to speeding faster. also told me to get a traffic lawyer and i could reduce the fine plus get the points off .we will see:shrug01:

 

[Rich Z]

Exactly what I'm seeing. I thought hands free was the law?

I know with a 'smart phone' you either need voice dialing or get off the road to place your call. Touch screens are almost impossible while driving.

Yeah, I love it when you can see people actually TEXTING while driving.... :banghead:

 

[Z06 Rocket]

Is the officer required to be there and if so is he reimbursed for his time?

As Shadow said $5 to $10 witness fee plus overtime rate of whatever they earn on the job. If they are on duty at the time of the hearing then it is part of the normal work day and there is no extra pay or witness fee given. Thats why some guys love midnight shift... everything is overtime since there is no "night court" like the old sitcom.

 

[Bob K]

As Shadow said $5 to $10 witness fee plus overtime rate of whatever they earn on the job. If they are on duty at the time of the hearing then it is part of the normal work day and there is no extra pay or witness fee given. Thats why some guys love midnight shift... everything is overtime since there is no "night court" like the old sitcom.

OK, thanks.