Fighting Traffic Ticket PA, Speeding Ticket Philadelphia

Traffic Violations Lawyers Philadelphia, Fight Speeding Ticket PA

Philadelphia Traffic Violations Attorney Mark D. Hauser has be fighting traffic tickets and speeding violations in Philadelphia traffic court for 14 years. He has aided many with speeding violations and other traffic citations avoid a license suspension or harmful points.

Traffic Tickets: Deciding Whether to Fight or Pay Up

Evaluate your chances of winning before you go to traffic court.

There are two kinds of traffic tickets: Ones you can beat and ones you can't. The problem is determining which kind you got. If it's your first ticket in ten years and you expect it will be another decade before you get another one, you may want to avoid this whole question, pay the fine, and move on. Or you may want to consider going to traffic school, which takes a day of your time but keeps you record clear. If you can't attend traffic school -- or choose not to -- you need to evaluate whether you have a winner or a loser, so you can develop the proper strategy to fight it in court.

Study the Law You Are Charged Under

Believe it or not, cops sometimes don't know the exact wording of the law, and it is the exact wording of the law that is most important to you if you are going to fight your ticket. And many laws are often so convoluted that it's not uncommon to find, upon careful reading, that what you did was not, technically speaking, a violation of the exact words of the statute.

When trying to fight a ticket, ask yourself the question: "What are the elements (parts) of the offense I am charged with committing?"

For example, in most states, the law making U-turns illegal reads like this:

No person in a residential district shall make a U-turn when any other vehicle is approaching from either direction within 200 feet, except at an intersection when the approaching vehicle is controlled by an official traffic control device.

You should break this law down into its legal elements by drawing a line between each clause, like this:

No person in a residential district / shall make a U-turn / when any other vehicle is approaching from either direction within 200 feet / except at an intersection / when the approaching vehicle / is controlled / by an official traffic control device.

Focusing on each element of a law is often the key to unlocking an effective defense. That's because, to be found guilty of having made this illegal U-turn, the state must prove you violated each "element" or clause of the offense. In this case, the state would have to prove each of the following facts:

1. You were driving in a residential district.
2. You drove your vehicle in a 180-degree turn, or "U-turn."
3. Another vehicle was approaching within 200 feet or less, in front of or behind you.
4. An "official traffic control device" at an "intersection" was not controlling the vehicle approaching you.

If you can show that your conduct didn't violate even one element of a traffic law, you are home free. For example, if the area where you were ticketed was not a residential district, or the vehicle the officer claims was approaching was over 200 feet away, or you were at an intersection controlled by an "official traffic control device," you should quickly be found not guilty.

Will a judge really follow such a technical reading of the law? You bet. This type of hyper-technical, word-by-word reading of statutes is the key skill all lawyers and judges learn in law school. In fact, they know of no other approach. This makes sense when you realize that the American legal system is built on the concept that you are innocent unless the government can prove you violated a law that prohibits clearly defined conduct.

Consider Other Viable Defenses

Even if you can't challenge the law you are charged with violating, all is not lost. You should ask yourself some other questions that might open up a defense:

• Was the officer's view of what occurred obstructed by other moving vehicles or stationary objects like trees, fences, or buildings? If so, this allows you to argue the officer could not have clearly seen the alleged offense and gives you an opening to sell your version of events to the judge.
• Did the officer stop the right car? It is quite possible in heavy traffic for an officer to see a violation committed by one white minivan (a 1995 Plymouth Voyager, for example) and to stop another (an almost identical white 1994 Dodge Caravan) further down the road. Your ability to claim this happened goes way up if you can show that, because of a curve in the road, construction project, or just heavy traffic, the officer lost sight of the offending vehicle between the violation and pulling you over.
• Were you charged with speeding when you were driving safely, even though you were driving over the speed limit? In about 20 states, the law says it's legal to drive slightly over the posted speed limit as long as you can prove conditions made it safe to do so.
• Was there an actual, provable error in the officer's approach or methodology? In citing you for speeding, did the officer correctly pace your vehicle or properly use radar, laser, or VASCAR to establish your speed? (But realize that generalized statements about the possible inadequacies of radar or laser techniques almost never result in your beating a speeding ticket.)
• Do any other legal defenses exist to the law you're charged with violating? For example, if you were charged with driving too slowly in the left lane of a multi-lane highway, in most states it is a legal defense that you were planning to turn left.

Defenses That Almost Never Fly

The defenses listed here don't usually work, so if this is all you've got, it's probably a waste of time to go to court (unless you're counting on the officer's not showing up, and you get lucky).

• You claim you were honestly mistaken about the law (as opposed to a particular fact, as would be the case with a hidden stop sign). For example, if you tell the judge that you honestly thought it was okay to just slow down instead stopping at a blinking red light, his reply may be, "Sorry, ignorance of a law is no excuse."
• You argue your violation didn't harm anybody. Sorry, you are still legally required to stop at a red light even if it's 3:00 a.m. and no other vehicle is moving within two miles. The fact that your illegal conduct was not dangerous is not a winning defense, except when you are cited for speeding in states where it can be legal to exceed the posted speed.
• You complain, "The officer was picking on me." This is called "selective enforcement" and is often raised by a motorist who claims the ticketing officer ignored others who were also violating the law. It is almost impossible to win this one, since the law makes it plain that it does you no good to simply show that other drivers also violated the law and that the officer singled you out. To win with a "selective enforcement" defense, you have to take a huge additional step and show that the officer had a specific and improper motive to pick on you. If you had just won a libel case against him or had complained against him for an earlier incident, you might have a chance -- otherwise, forget it.
• You tell a sympathetic story. The fact that your child, your mother, or your parakeet was ill will not get you off. At best, the judge may reduce your fine a little (especially if you throw in the fact that you have a low income and nine hungry mouths to feed).
• You say, "The officer's lying." This is highly unlikely to result in your being found not guilty, at least without presenting any specifics to back up your contention.

If the Officer Doesn't Show

No matter what your defense is, you normally win if the officer fails to show up. Don't underestimate the possibility of this happening. For all sorts of reasons, including the officer being on vacation, having a scheduling conflict, having been transferred, or not being notified of the court date, cops often miss court hearings.

Here are a few tips to help you decide if the arresting officer is likely to be a no-show.

• The more serious the violation, the more likely the officer will be there. If you and a dozen others are ticketed at "quota time" for going 5 mph over the speed limit, the officer is less likely to show up than if you were cited for going 60 mph in a school zone.
• The further the officer is located from the courthouse, the less likely he is to appear. In large counties this can really work to your advantage.
• An officer isn't as likely to appear during his vacation. There are usually more no-shows during the summer.

Five Strategies for Fighting a Traffic Ticket

So you want to fight your speeding or traffic ticket? Here are five strategies that may help you win your case.

1. Challenge the Officer's Subjective Conclusion

   In many states, with many tickets, it's possible -- and sometimes even fairly easy -- to challenge the police officer's view of what happened. This is particularly likely in situations where a cop must make a subjective judgment as to whether you violated the law. For example, when an officer gives you a ticket for making an unsafe left, you may argue that your actions were "safe and responsible" considering the prevailing traffic conditions. It will always help your case if you can point to facts that tend to show that the cop was not in a good location to accurately view what happened or was busy doing other tasks -- for example, driving 50 mph in heavy traffic.

   In about 20 states, deciding whether it is safe to exceed the speed limit is a circumstance where a subjective judgment must be made. That's because in these states the posted speed limit is not an absolute limit but only creates a legal presumption as to the safe speed for that road. This raises the possibility of challenging the officer's judgment by proving it was safe to slightly exceed the posted limit.

2. Challenge the Officer's Observations

   In cases where your state law requires an objective observation by the officer (not a judgment call about whether your action was safe), it often boils down to an argument about whose version of the facts is correct.. For instance, if you were cited for failing to come to a stop at a red light or for making a prohibited turn, who wins the case will depend on who the judge believes. Unfortunately, the guy wearing the badge usually wins, unless you can cast real doubt on his ability to accurately perceive what happened. However, there are a number of techniques that may work to raise at least a reasonable doubt as to your guilt.

   Here are the types of evidence most likely to help you convince the judge that you -- not the officer -- are in the right:

   • Statements of witnesses, such as passengers or bystanders, who testify to your version of events.
   • A clear, easy-to-understand diagram showing where your vehicle and the officer's vehicle were in relation to key locations and objects, such as an intersection, traffic signal, or other vehicle. Diagrams are especially important for tickets given at intersections, such as right-of-way, traffic light, or stop sign violations.
   • Photographs of intersections, stop signs, and road conditions. These can be used to show conditions like obscured stop signs or other physical evidence that backs up your case.
   • Any other evidence that would cast doubt on the officer's ability to accurately observe your alleged violation. A classic way to do this is to prove his view was obscured -- or that his angle of observation made it impossible to accurately see what happened.

3. Prove Your Conduct Was a "Mistake of Fact"

   Judges are allowed some leeway in considering circumstances beyond your control. If you can show that you made an honest and reasonable error, a judge might find you made a "mistake of fact," meaning your ticket should be dismissed.

   Here are several examples:

   • You failed to stop before coming to the pedestrian crosswalk markers because they were old and faded and could not be clearly seen.
   • You failed to stop at a stop sign after a major storm because the sign was hidden by a broken branch. If possible, you should take pictures of the obscured sign and show them to the judge to support your argument.

   Often this argument comes down to your claim that you weren't given fair notice as to the conduct that was expected of you. For example, a judge might dismiss a ticket for running a stop sign if it was brand new. However, the judge would probably not buy this defense if:

   • the sign had been up for more than a few weeks
   • you had never stopped at that intersection before (and therefore shouldn't have been fooled by its sudden presence), or
   • you were speeding.

4. Prove Your Conduct Was "Legally Justified"

   You may also successfully argue that your actions were "legally justified" considering the circumstances of your alleged violation. For example, if you were charged with driving too slowly in the left lane, it is a legal defense in all states that you had to slow down to make a lawful left turn. In this situation you do not have to deny that you were driving significantly below the speed limit and causing vehicles behind you to slow down, but you can offer the additional fact that legally justifies your otherwise unlawful action. Such defenses can be very successful because they raise an additional fact or legal point, rather than simply contradicting the officer's testimony.

   Here are a couple of examples of situations in which this defense might work:

   • You are forced to stop on a freeway because your car has begun to make a loud and dangerous-sounding noise and you fear you would put other drivers in danger if you continued to drive without checking it out.
   • You swerved into the right lane without signaling a lane change to pull over because a hornet flew into your car through your open window.
   • You had sudden and severe chest pain and safely exceeded the posted speed limit to get to the doctor, whose office was only one half-mile away.

5. Prove Your Conduct Was Necessary to Avoid Harm

   Emergencies not of your own making are often another legal "necessity" defense, recognized in all 50 states. To take an extreme example, you should be able to beat a charge of speeding if you can prove you sped up to avoid an out-of-control truck. The key here is to convincingly argue that you were forced to violate the exact wording of a traffic law in order to avoid a serious and immediate danger to yourself or others. Here are some examples:

   • Driving in the right, or slow, lane, you are boxed in from the back and the left side by speeding cars. To avoid colliding with a car entering the highway from the right, you accelerate well beyond the posted limit.
   • Because there is a car just to your right, you briefly speed up to avoid being rear-ended by a super-aggressive big rig that is tailgating you. Once you are in the clear, you move to the right and resume a legal speed.
   • You swerve across a double yellow line to avoid hitting another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or other unexpected obstacle. If you had failed to take an evasive action, you would have been at high risk of being involved in an accident.

   But it's important to realize that there is a big difference between presenting a necessity defense based on road conditions and coming up with an excuse for breaking the law based on your own inattention or personal need. Excuses that are born to lose include:

   • My mind wandered and I didn't realize I was speeding.
   • I was arguing on my cell phone and I didn't see the stop sign.
   • I couldn't fasten my seatbelt because my stomach was uncomfortably full from lunch.

Learn About the Case Against You

If you're going to fight a traffic ticket, you'll want to know as much as you can about the case against you. This article will help you obtain and understand the police officer's notes.

Ever wondered what the officer who just ticketed you is doing, sitting in his patrol car after writing you up? He is probably writing notes -- something on the back of your ticket -- with details of why he ticketed you and what the conditions were at the time.

Just before trial, he will typically review his notes, and sometimes refer to them while testifying. With courtroom experience, an officer can often glance down at his notes every few seconds, rattling off a narrative that sounds like he was recounting something that happened yesterday. But because the officer probably won't remember much about what happened and doesn't want to be tripped up fabricating a detail, most officers will depart very little from their notes.

Get The Officer's Notes

If you can obtain those notes before your traffic court trial, you may be able to glean the officer's strategy for convicting you. Fortunately, in many states you have the right to demand access to the officer's notes made at or soon after your ticket was issued through a process called "discovery." You also have the right to demand access to other information, like instruction manuals on the use of equipment that was used to clock your speed. This information can be a huge help when cross-examining the officer and presenting your own case at trial.

To discover the officer's notes, you must make a specific written request for the disclosure of all notes or documents relevant to your case. If you have an arraignment, you may be able to do this there. But if, as is far more common, you plead not guilty and post bail without an arraignment, you'll need to make your request promptly by mail. Send your discovery request to both the police agency that ticketed you and to the local prosecuting agency. Ask your local court if you have the right of "discovery" and how to write a letter demanding access to the policeman's notes.

If Your Discovery Request is Ignored

Because so few defendants ask to see the evidence against them, many police, prosecutors, and even some judges, believe this "discovery right" is not available in traffic court. Accordingly, even though your discovery request is probably proper in your state, you may find it's ignored. If so, you'll need to persist in making this request, reiterating that you believe access to the officer's notes is critical to presenting your defense.

If you get no response to your discovery request within three weeks, you will need to go to court and make a "pre-trial motion" to ask the judge to order the police to release the notes to you. Lawyers call this a "motion to compel discovery" or dismiss the case. Your best bet is to call or visit the court clerk to schedule this motion before your scheduled trial date. Failing this, it may be possible to have your motion to compel discovery considered on the day of your trial.

Assuming a pretrial hearing to consider your discovery request is scheduled, be prepared to show the judge a copy of your written discovery request. Then ask him to formally order the prosecution or police agency to provide a copy of the officer's notes. Be sure to ask the judge to order that this be done prior to any scheduled trial date, so you have enough time to use them to prepare.

If your discovery request has still been ignored when your trial date rolls around, you may want to ask the judge to dismiss your case. Here is sample language that, of course, will need to be adjusted to fit your facts:

Your honor, the prosecution has failed to provide the discovery I properly requested ("and," if true, "that you ordered"). I move to dismiss the case on account of the prosecution's failure to provide discovery. Here is a copy of the written request I made a month ago for the officer's notes. I sent them to the prosecutor and police agency, and they both ignored me. I have not waived my right to a speedy trial, and I shouldn't have to. I can't properly prepare for trial even if the notes are produced now. As a result, I request that the charges against me be dismissed.

If the following requirements are met, you may get your case dismissed at this point:

• You are entitled to discovery under state law.
• Your state has a speedy-trial law entitling you to trial within a certain period and you haven't given up the right to a speedy trial.
• Postponing the trial to allow the prosecution to get the notes for you would require you to give up your right to a trial within the "speedy trial" time allowed.
• You made your request for "discovery" promptly (and within any time limit).

If the judge won't dismiss your case, renew your request right then that you be given a chance to examine the officer's notes. The judge should at least be willing to give you a few minutes to do this.

What To Do With The Officer's Notes

If you receive a copy of the officer's notes, you'll want to study them carefully. It's possible that these notes may cause you to re-evaluate your defense strategy, when you know what the officer is going to say at trial. Here are some things to look for:

• Detail. If the officer's notes don't say much, he probably won't have much to say at trial, unless you gave him a reason to remember your specific case (a big reason why it's never wise to behave like an idiot when you are pulled over). On the other hand, the more detailed his notes (such as a fact-specific statement convincingly laying out what you did) the better he'll probably sound at trial.
• What the Notes Don't Say. If the notes lack key details, you may be able to challenge the officer's memory. Look to see if the notes:
  • Mention which lane you were in.
  • Say exactly how the officer recorded your speed, if you were cited for speeding. (For example, if pacing was used, how far the officer paced you before stopping your vehicle.)
  • Have detailed specific information about road and weather conditions and other nearby vehicles. For example, if you were cited for an unsafe turn across traffic, the notes should detail the exact traffic situation justifying the officer's judgment call.
  • Report where the officer was when he observed you.
• Diagrams. Police will often make a diagram on the ticket, especially with violations that occur at intersections, like running a stop sign or stoplight, unsafe turns or failure to yield. If the officer does a careful job of including significant details, he will probably look well prepared in court. If not, you have a better chance to raise a reasonable doubt as to your guilt by demonstrating through cross-examination that the officer can't honestly remember what happened.
• Driver statements. Most officers will note any admissions made by the driver on pulling him or her over ("said she was going 70, asked for a break"), sometimes quoting them directly. ("Yes, I ran the stop sign, but my daughter's pet iguana was sick and I had to get her to the vet.") Of course, you are far better off if there are no such admissions written down.

When Speeding Isn't Speeding

If you want to fight a speeding ticket, understand the different types of speed limits and how to defend yourself.

All 50 states use three basic types of speed limits, called "absolute," "presumed," and "basic." Because each type of speed limit violation often requires a unique defense, it is key to understand which you are charged with violating.

"Absolute" Speed Limits

Most states have an "absolute" speed law. There is no trick to how this works: If the sign says 40 mph and you drive 41 mph or more, you have violated the law. There are not many defenses available for violating absolute speed limit laws, but some include:

• Attacking the officer's determination of your speed. To do this you must discover what method the officer used to determine your speed -- like radar, laser, or pacing -- and then attack that particular method.
• Claiming an emergency forced you to exceed the speed limit to avoid serious damage or injury to yourself or others. For instance, if you had to speed up to avoid a small plane making an emergency landing on a freeway, you would have a good case.
• Claiming that the officer mistook your car for another car. With so many similar looking late-model cars, it is very possible that a cop could see a speeding car, lose sight of it around a corner, and then wrongly pick out your car further down the road.

"Presumed" Speed Limits

Being charged with violating a "presumed" speed limit means you are accused of driving at an unsafe speed, considering the conditions at the time you were ticketed. If you're accused of violating a "presumed" speed limit, you have two possible defenses:

• Claim you weren't exceeding the posted speed limit, just as you would if you were charged with violating an "absolute" speed law.
• Claim that, even if you were exceeding the posted limit, you were driving safely given the specific road, weather, and traffic conditions at the time.

You have a good chance of prevailing if you can show you were just slightly over the limit and road, weather, and traffic conditions were good. For example, if you know you were driving 33-35 mph in a 25-mph zone, and the officer can probably prove it, you should concentrate your defense on showing that you were driving at a reasonable speed, considering the conditions at the time you were stopped.

In a "presumed" speed law case, you have the burden of proving your speed was safe and prudent. In other words, the speed law presumes the posted speed limit is the fastest safe speed. It is up to you to prove that going faster at the time you were ticketed is also safe.

While proving that it was safe to go 65 mph in a 35 mph zone will be close to impossible, there are many wide, straight roads designed for safe driving at 35 to 50 mph that have lower posted speed limits because of political pressure on public officials to crack down on speeding.

Here are important ways to build your case:

• Go back to the scene and take photos at the same time and day of the week you were cited. Also, take a photo from the driver's viewpoint. It's obviously to your benefit if you can establish the road was straight, with good visibility.
• Diagram the road, showing the location of your vehicle, the officer's vehicle, and any other traffic. It helps if you were not ticketed in a busy commercial district where cars enter and exit parking lots and businesses.
• The presence of heavy traffic can sometimes be a plus. With lots of other cars on the road your argument could be that "everyone was exceeding the speed limit by about 10 mph and I would have endangered myself and others by driving slower than the flow of traffic."

"Presumed" speed limit laws work both ways. On a pleasant summer morning on a wide, uncrowded highway, it may be safe to drive above the posted speed limit. However, on a wet day when visibility is limited by fog, it may not even be safe to drive at the posted speed limit. An officer can still ticket you for driving at or below the posted limit, if it is unsafe to do so. This is true in all states.

The "Basic" Speed Law

"Absolute" speed states set an upper limit, above which your speed is considered illegal. Drive one mile over the limit and you are a law breaker. But these states also have a way to ticket you when you are driving under the speed limit if an officer concludes your speed was unsafe. Called the "basic" speed law, it prohibits driving at an unsafe speed, even if that speed is below the posted limit.

In all states, tickets for driving under the speed limit, but too fast to be safe, are often referred to as "driving too fast for conditions." For example, driving exactly at the 65 mph posted limit on the freeway would not be smart amidst slower and heavy traffic, in a dense fog, or in a driving rainstorm or blizzard.

The difference between fighting one of these tickets and a speeding ticket for going over the speed limit is that here the prosecution has the burden of proving you were driving unsafely. (Again, that's because the posted speed limit is presumed to be safe.) This means the officer must testify that, given the unusual road, weather, or traffic conditions, your below-the-limit speed was unsafe. This can be tough to do unless you were involved in an accident, since the cop may be hard put to come up with enough hard evidence to rebut the presumption established by the posted limit.

Police most often rely on the "basic" speed law after an accident. They reason that you were driving too fast, no matter how slow you were driving, because you were in an accident. However, you do not have to despair if you were in an accident and are charged with violating the "basic" law for driving at an unsafe below-the-limit speed. The fact that you've had an accident is not absolute proof that you were driving unsafely. Accidents, after all, are not always caused by your violating the law. Often they are caused when another driver screwed up.

If the police officer argues that the accident itself is evidence that you were driving at an unsafe speed, even though you were not technically speeding, you must be prepared to challenge him. Your best bets are normally to claim, and hopefully prove, that the accident could have occurred for a number of reasons. For example, it could have been:

• entirely or partly another driver's fault
• the result of a freak act of nature, in the form of a sudden wind gust, a tree falling, or other natural occurrence, or
• a defect in the highway, signs, or signals, which would happen if a stop sign is missing or a stoplight fails.

(Copyright ©1994-2006 FindLaw, a Thomson business)