Friday, October 08, 2010
No Intent to Speed - To Much Hassle - No Weapon
Lots of folks in traffic court want to stipulate to the facts which would require the court to find them guilty, but still believe that the court should not find them guilty. Two of my recent favorites have been
(1)The speeder whose argument was that yes, she did speed up to 53 in the 35 mph zone, but she thought that was where the limit increased. So she had no intent to break the law, and she slowed right down when she realized the speed limit had not changed (which curiously coincided with the moment that she saw the cop car). Because she thought she was obeying the law and slowed down quickly the court should not give her a ticket. She was disappointed - but I'm sure the court had no intent to disappoint.
(2) The man with no current motor vehicle insurance whose claim was that the insurance carrier had canceled coverage for the entire state and he had never received a notification letter. He was informed by the court that it was his duty to make sure he was insured. But he still wanted to explain the long story and how unfair it would be for him to have to have the ticket. His sad story did get the ticket amended to a different charge (but only because my witness didn't show up; his previous record persuaded me that he had not been as conscientious about hsi driving in the past as he claimed so I wouldn't just dismiss it).
Another puzzling phenomenon involves the violators from out of state who don't want to come back to contest the ticket. They just want to tell me about it and have me dismiss the thing because it would be too much of a hassle or expense for them to come back and contest it. Often it's after a default has already been entered and they expect me to credit their version of events rather than the report by the officer or citizen witnesses.
More unique is the guy (whose faithful worship at the Church of THC has withered any grey cells he might have had) who thinks that his son should not be charged for ambushing another kid and punching him in the face and kicking him while he was down. Mr. Barely Thinking's argument: He didn't use a weapon, so he shouldn't be charged. At least his argument has the merit of offering a bright line rule for both criminals and prosecutors... but not much assurance for would-be victims.
(1)The speeder whose argument was that yes, she did speed up to 53 in the 35 mph zone, but she thought that was where the limit increased. So she had no intent to break the law, and she slowed right down when she realized the speed limit had not changed (which curiously coincided with the moment that she saw the cop car). Because she thought she was obeying the law and slowed down quickly the court should not give her a ticket. She was disappointed - but I'm sure the court had no intent to disappoint.
(2) The man with no current motor vehicle insurance whose claim was that the insurance carrier had canceled coverage for the entire state and he had never received a notification letter. He was informed by the court that it was his duty to make sure he was insured. But he still wanted to explain the long story and how unfair it would be for him to have to have the ticket. His sad story did get the ticket amended to a different charge (but only because my witness didn't show up; his previous record persuaded me that he had not been as conscientious about hsi driving in the past as he claimed so I wouldn't just dismiss it).
Another puzzling phenomenon involves the violators from out of state who don't want to come back to contest the ticket. They just want to tell me about it and have me dismiss the thing because it would be too much of a hassle or expense for them to come back and contest it. Often it's after a default has already been entered and they expect me to credit their version of events rather than the report by the officer or citizen witnesses.
More unique is the guy (whose faithful worship at the Church of THC has withered any grey cells he might have had) who thinks that his son should not be charged for ambushing another kid and punching him in the face and kicking him while he was down. Mr. Barely Thinking's argument: He didn't use a weapon, so he shouldn't be charged. At least his argument has the merit of offering a bright line rule for both criminals and prosecutors... but not much assurance for would-be victims.
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 12:15 AM 
