Advice for contesting a traffic ticket?
September 10, 2012 4:28 PM Subscribe
Best practices for writing a letter to contest a traffic ticket?
I got a traffic ticket on Saturday -- first in over 20 years. I'm going to contest based on the following reasons:
Is this a decent or valid argument? Are there any phrases to avoid or to make my point more effective? Is it a good idea or a bad idea to mention my spotless driving record? (I had one ticket over 20 years ago, but I think they took it off my record after I went to defensive driving.)
The basic fact is that, yes, I did make a turn where I wasn't supposed to. But, it wasn't intentional or malicious, and I feel that in following through with it, I made the decision not to put other drivers around me at risk.
Thanks for any advice. The ticket says I can contest by registered mail, so I think I'll probably do that instead of going to court.
(Jurisdiction: Placer County, CA)
I got a traffic ticket on Saturday -- first in over 20 years. I'm going to contest based on the following reasons:
- The ticket was for "failure to obey a traffic sign."
- I was in an unfamiliar area, following directions I was given. What happened first was that I got off the highway, turned right at the end of the exit ramp, and then realized that I needed to make an immediate left turn to get onto the right street. I missed that left turn, and it would have been unsafe to try to turn there at that point.
- I instead went up the next light and made a left turn into a gas station so that I could get turned around the right way.
- As I was making that left turn, I noticed the "No left turn, No U-turns" sign next to the traffic signal.
- On seeing the sign, I had two choices: To abort the turn and merge back into normal traffic coming up behind me, or complete the turn (there was no oncoming traffic). Completing the turn was the safer option, so I took it.
- A sheriff's deputy saw me and wrote the ticket.
Is this a decent or valid argument? Are there any phrases to avoid or to make my point more effective? Is it a good idea or a bad idea to mention my spotless driving record? (I had one ticket over 20 years ago, but I think they took it off my record after I went to defensive driving.)
The basic fact is that, yes, I did make a turn where I wasn't supposed to. But, it wasn't intentional or malicious, and I feel that in following through with it, I made the decision not to put other drivers around me at risk.
Thanks for any advice. The ticket says I can contest by registered mail, so I think I'll probably do that instead of going to court.
(Jurisdiction: Placer County, CA)
Not a valid justification. The ticket does not penalize intentional violations, only violations. You can certainly attempt to fight it, but I would frame it more as a 'beg for mercy' approach rather than 'I'm innocent' approach, because really, no leg to stand on from my perspective.
posted by PercussivePaul at 4:38 PM on September 10, 2012
posted by PercussivePaul at 4:38 PM on September 10, 2012
Is this a decent or valid argument?
Not at all.
Is it a good idea or a bad idea to mention my spotless driving record? (I had one ticket over 20 years ago, but I think they took it off my record after I went to defensive driving.)
It wont help your case at all. You can still go to traffic school (albeit online, in the comfort of your own home) and keep this off your record (since you haven't had a ticket in more than 18 months).
The basic fact is that, yes, I did make a turn where I wasn't supposed to. But, it wasn't intentional or malicious
That's nice and does not exempt you from paying the penalty.
posted by special-k at 4:48 PM on September 10, 2012
Not at all.
Is it a good idea or a bad idea to mention my spotless driving record? (I had one ticket over 20 years ago, but I think they took it off my record after I went to defensive driving.)
It wont help your case at all. You can still go to traffic school (albeit online, in the comfort of your own home) and keep this off your record (since you haven't had a ticket in more than 18 months).
The basic fact is that, yes, I did make a turn where I wasn't supposed to. But, it wasn't intentional or malicious
That's nice and does not exempt you from paying the penalty.
posted by special-k at 4:48 PM on September 10, 2012
Wow, tough crowd tonight!
Anyway... In most places, they have some variant of a "good driver" law that basically amounts to one "get out of jail free" card for minor traffic violations once every two or three years.
You do, however, need to find out how to invoke that, and (usually) need to waste a day by showing up in court; and even then, a bastard of a judge can still refuse to accept it (and assess court costs on top of the fine).
posted by pla at 4:51 PM on September 10, 2012
Anyway... In most places, they have some variant of a "good driver" law that basically amounts to one "get out of jail free" card for minor traffic violations once every two or three years.
You do, however, need to find out how to invoke that, and (usually) need to waste a day by showing up in court; and even then, a bastard of a judge can still refuse to accept it (and assess court costs on top of the fine).
posted by pla at 4:51 PM on September 10, 2012
Best answer: You're in California! You're in luck.
TicketAssassin.
This shit works.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:52 PM on September 10, 2012 [3 favorites]
TicketAssassin.
This shit works.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:52 PM on September 10, 2012 [3 favorites]
Best answer: It's probably worth some effort into fighting this, but your argument stinks. Honestly, you probably want to just play procedurally and hope someone else messes up.
I don't know what Vehicle code section you were charged with but sections 21367, 21367a, 21367b, 21367c are likely and all put a point on your record. But you should check! If it turns out you're being charged with a non-point, low cost, ticket, I'd recommend just paying.
The contesting by registered mail is otherwise known as a trial by declaration. If the other side fails to respond you can sometimes win these. The nice par is, if you lose, you can still request a regular trial. Some lawyers and books, therefore, recommend you always do this. Personally, I don't bother and just set it for trial. You almost always lose these and I don't think it's worth the time to do it.
The next stage is the trial, where you'll have a chance to talk to the cop before hand. If you're lucky the cop doesn't show and you win! Yay!
If you're unlucky the cop does show. But that's not the whole game yet. You'll have a chance to talk to the officer ahead of the trial and try to come to a disposition. Most of the time cops are allowed to reach some sort of compromise where you pick, for instance, a different section to be charged under and pay the fine, but don't get a point on your license. I do note, however, that the California Highway Patrol seems to not do this anymore. Orders from On High, I guess.
If you really want to go through with it what you should do is hire a lawyer (Honestly, probably not worth it), or go to the library and get NOLO's excellent How to Fight Your Ticket in California. I don't like all the advice in the book, but it's mostly spot on and it's couple of hundred pages will get you far more info than any Ask-Me.
posted by bswinburn at 4:53 PM on September 10, 2012
I don't know what Vehicle code section you were charged with but sections 21367, 21367a, 21367b, 21367c are likely and all put a point on your record. But you should check! If it turns out you're being charged with a non-point, low cost, ticket, I'd recommend just paying.
The contesting by registered mail is otherwise known as a trial by declaration. If the other side fails to respond you can sometimes win these. The nice par is, if you lose, you can still request a regular trial. Some lawyers and books, therefore, recommend you always do this. Personally, I don't bother and just set it for trial. You almost always lose these and I don't think it's worth the time to do it.
The next stage is the trial, where you'll have a chance to talk to the cop before hand. If you're lucky the cop doesn't show and you win! Yay!
If you're unlucky the cop does show. But that's not the whole game yet. You'll have a chance to talk to the officer ahead of the trial and try to come to a disposition. Most of the time cops are allowed to reach some sort of compromise where you pick, for instance, a different section to be charged under and pay the fine, but don't get a point on your license. I do note, however, that the California Highway Patrol seems to not do this anymore. Orders from On High, I guess.
If you really want to go through with it what you should do is hire a lawyer (Honestly, probably not worth it), or go to the library and get NOLO's excellent How to Fight Your Ticket in California. I don't like all the advice in the book, but it's mostly spot on and it's couple of hundred pages will get you far more info than any Ask-Me.
posted by bswinburn at 4:53 PM on September 10, 2012
You're in California! You're in luck.
TicketAssassin.
This shit works.
It does not work. The site is outdated (but online). Nothing has been updated there in a very long time. Sign up and you'll receive automated email (from Patrick Mulroy) asking you to pay for crap. If you do send him $25, you'll be out of the ticket fine + $25.
mudpuppie: Don't waste your time. Tickets suck, I know. But there is absolutely no chance in hell you are going to win this.
posted by special-k at 4:56 PM on September 10, 2012
TicketAssassin.
This shit works.
It does not work. The site is outdated (but online). Nothing has been updated there in a very long time. Sign up and you'll receive automated email (from Patrick Mulroy) asking you to pay for crap. If you do send him $25, you'll be out of the ticket fine + $25.
mudpuppie: Don't waste your time. Tickets suck, I know. But there is absolutely no chance in hell you are going to win this.
posted by special-k at 4:56 PM on September 10, 2012
TicketAssassin, like Cool Papa Bell, states, is a decent resource. They're more into the trial by declaration thing than I am, but it's still cool. They've been great on red light cameras in particular.
posted by bswinburn at 4:57 PM on September 10, 2012
posted by bswinburn at 4:57 PM on September 10, 2012
It does not work.
You're missing the point of the site, which is fighting tickets by trial by mail. The $25 is for forms, but you can do everything recommended for free.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:27 PM on September 10, 2012
You're missing the point of the site, which is fighting tickets by trial by mail. The $25 is for forms, but you can do everything recommended for free.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:27 PM on September 10, 2012
Your argument is bad. It isn't going to hurt you to try to fight this, but getting flustered and missing traffic signs is not an excuse to disobey them.
posted by J. Wilson at 5:52 PM on September 10, 2012
posted by J. Wilson at 5:52 PM on September 10, 2012
This interests me, because I was in a similar situation a while back. There was a very poorly visible sign, and a cop who I could swear was just waiting there to nail someone.
It made me wonder -- could a motorist with an otherwise clean driving record (a) request information from the police about the relative frequency of traffic stops at that location, and then (b) use that information to convince the judge that, if so many people were getting stopped there, that the problem was that the site was poorly marked?
(And the corollary -- that the cops were clearly aware of the problem, but instead of fixing it were using it as an opportunity to generate revenue/meet quotas.)
posted by Alaska Jack at 6:28 PM on September 10, 2012
It made me wonder -- could a motorist with an otherwise clean driving record (a) request information from the police about the relative frequency of traffic stops at that location, and then (b) use that information to convince the judge that, if so many people were getting stopped there, that the problem was that the site was poorly marked?
(And the corollary -- that the cops were clearly aware of the problem, but instead of fixing it were using it as an opportunity to generate revenue/meet quotas.)
posted by Alaska Jack at 6:28 PM on September 10, 2012
Reposting my story of fighting a traffic ticket in California at least semi-successfully. Not exactly the same as your situation, but some similarities that might help.
Stopped at a 4 way stop, waited my turn, and proceeded straight through intersection. Immediately pulled over, very confused; knew that I had stopped and waited, thought it might be something with my out-of-state plates, but the officer wouldn't tell me why he had pulled me over - even when asked. Finally came back to the car and informed me that the intersection I used was designated as "Right Turn Only from 4 - 6 pm (Wha?). I told him I hadn't seen any sign to that effect, he gave me my ticket and that was it.
I went back through the neighborhood and watched the same cop pull over another person for the same thing. I drove to the same spot, and found one sign bent over at a 45 degree angle away from the road, and facing down about 10 yards before the stop. The other sign at the intersection was blocked by a construction site portable toilet, and could only be seen if you turned your head all the way to the right as you pulled up. I made my right turn, looped around once more, and saw the friendly local precinct one block away, and watch the officer pull over the third person in less than 10 minutes. Hell of a money-making operation.
The next day I came back with a camera and took pictures of the damaged and blocked signs. My court date was far away, and when the time came I brought the pictures and dressed above the norm for the crowd, basic dress shirt and khakis. Waited over two hours for my turn, hearing the story of every person without insurance, without a license, etc; all much much worse than my offense.
I was confused as to what I should plead, after listening to the previous cases. Not guilty generally resulted in setting an actual court date, guilty just meant get your fine, and I went with "No Contest" with explanation. I explained the situation clearly to the judge, and told him I had pictures, which were brought to him. During that time, I almost pushed my luck by pointing out the number of people pulled over and the proximity to the police station, but the judge quickly waved that idea off and agreed that the signs were not clearly visible. He ruled the case dismissed, but I did have to pay the court fees (somewhere on the line of $27?). I greatly enjoyed arguing my case like that, but thank goodness I didn't go on to law school.
posted by shinynewnick at 6:36 PM on September 10, 2012
Stopped at a 4 way stop, waited my turn, and proceeded straight through intersection. Immediately pulled over, very confused; knew that I had stopped and waited, thought it might be something with my out-of-state plates, but the officer wouldn't tell me why he had pulled me over - even when asked. Finally came back to the car and informed me that the intersection I used was designated as "Right Turn Only from 4 - 6 pm (Wha?). I told him I hadn't seen any sign to that effect, he gave me my ticket and that was it.
I went back through the neighborhood and watched the same cop pull over another person for the same thing. I drove to the same spot, and found one sign bent over at a 45 degree angle away from the road, and facing down about 10 yards before the stop. The other sign at the intersection was blocked by a construction site portable toilet, and could only be seen if you turned your head all the way to the right as you pulled up. I made my right turn, looped around once more, and saw the friendly local precinct one block away, and watch the officer pull over the third person in less than 10 minutes. Hell of a money-making operation.
The next day I came back with a camera and took pictures of the damaged and blocked signs. My court date was far away, and when the time came I brought the pictures and dressed above the norm for the crowd, basic dress shirt and khakis. Waited over two hours for my turn, hearing the story of every person without insurance, without a license, etc; all much much worse than my offense.
I was confused as to what I should plead, after listening to the previous cases. Not guilty generally resulted in setting an actual court date, guilty just meant get your fine, and I went with "No Contest" with explanation. I explained the situation clearly to the judge, and told him I had pictures, which were brought to him. During that time, I almost pushed my luck by pointing out the number of people pulled over and the proximity to the police station, but the judge quickly waved that idea off and agreed that the signs were not clearly visible. He ruled the case dismissed, but I did have to pay the court fees (somewhere on the line of $27?). I greatly enjoyed arguing my case like that, but thank goodness I didn't go on to law school.
posted by shinynewnick at 6:36 PM on September 10, 2012
One more idea: I don't have any cites or links, but there are standards for what constitutes a valid "traffic sign," specifying size, placement, color, and such. It might be worth your while to find out what those are, and check to see if this particular sign complies.
posted by Corvid at 7:08 PM on September 10, 2012
posted by Corvid at 7:08 PM on September 10, 2012
I always heard that the important phrase in a case like this is "safe and prudent", as in "I saw the sign only after I began executing the left hand turn. Traffic was approaching from behind, so I felt that it was neither safe nor prudent to merge back into traffic and continue in my original direction". Full disclosure: I have never actually tested this argument.
Do follow up and let us know what you decided to do and how it turned out.
posted by vignettist at 10:56 PM on September 10, 2012
Do follow up and let us know what you decided to do and how it turned out.
posted by vignettist at 10:56 PM on September 10, 2012
IANAL
In Oregon, there is a criminal defense known as "Choice of Evils." It basically says that if you have to choose between two illegal things, choosing the lesser of the evils is a mitigating factor. I don't know that it has been applied to a traffic case, but your details reminded me of it.
Also, I had a red-light ticket that clearly showed me turning right at an intersection without stopping, but the cross-traffic was turning left (on a turn signal) so there was no chance I could have caused an accident. I wrote a letter explaining this and mailed it in with the fine. Since I explained the situation, the fine was reduced and they mailed me back a refund of the difference. Oregon, again, but it might help you.
posted by tacodave at 4:08 PM on September 11, 2012
In Oregon, there is a criminal defense known as "Choice of Evils." It basically says that if you have to choose between two illegal things, choosing the lesser of the evils is a mitigating factor. I don't know that it has been applied to a traffic case, but your details reminded me of it.
Also, I had a red-light ticket that clearly showed me turning right at an intersection without stopping, but the cross-traffic was turning left (on a turn signal) so there was no chance I could have caused an accident. I wrote a letter explaining this and mailed it in with the fine. Since I explained the situation, the fine was reduced and they mailed me back a refund of the difference. Oregon, again, but it might help you.
posted by tacodave at 4:08 PM on September 11, 2012
Also, writing a letter is not how to get out of a ticket. You go to court and make a plea, or plea it down to some non-moving violation.
Writing a letter can be a way to reach an accommodation in a sufficiently small jurisdiction. Such as allowing you to attend traffic school in a big city, after receiving a ticket somewhere too small to have any procedure for that (the last time I did it).
I always heard that the important phrase in a case like this is "safe and prudent", as in "I saw the sign only after I began executing the left hand turn.
The usefulness of that language is related to the precise violation you're charged with. Some are more subjective than others (like posted speed limits vs. the basic speed law).
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:18 PM on September 17, 2012
Writing a letter can be a way to reach an accommodation in a sufficiently small jurisdiction. Such as allowing you to attend traffic school in a big city, after receiving a ticket somewhere too small to have any procedure for that (the last time I did it).
I always heard that the important phrase in a case like this is "safe and prudent", as in "I saw the sign only after I began executing the left hand turn.
The usefulness of that language is related to the precise violation you're charged with. Some are more subjective than others (like posted speed limits vs. the basic speed law).
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:18 PM on September 17, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
No, it isn't. Sorry. Your failure to see a traffic control device is not an excuse for violating the law. You got flustered and turned around, and made a mistake. It happens to us all.
Also, writing a letter is not how to get out of a ticket. You go to court and make a plea, or plea it down to some non-moving violation.
posted by gjc at 4:35 PM on September 10, 2012 [2 favorites]