There is no confusion, except maybe on your part about what I've said.

There is a possibility that he got the ticket because that's what the police officer believes, why would a person stop AFTER crossing an intersection?

The police officer did NOT witness the accident, he/she can only see the results... and make guesses about what happened.

Maybe the officer doesn't believe that Ciggy stopped at the sign in the first place and thinks he stopped slow down afterward to cover that fact.

Fault or not in regards to the accident, is not my point either... my only point is... what would the officer and judge think? That is simple...

And THEY will make assumptions... and those assumptions won't help Ciggy get out of the ticket. Because the easiest assumption, is that there's something fishy about Ciggy's story. There are NO 3rd party witnesses. The only witness was Ciggy's passenger, and therefore automatically biased.

You don't want a judge to make assumptions...

except he got hit when he stopped AFTER crossing the intersection, not before.

Would you come to a stop after crossing an intersection? If there's nothing on the road in front of you.

 

ah I should have read more of the thread....yeah it seems pretty suspicious going to court. His only saving grace is the cop didn't actually witness him not making a full stop. Any halfway decent lawyer would make short work of that ticket.

 

According to Ciggy, he did make the full stop at the intersection too. But, like I said... no unbiased witness means hard for Ciggy to prove it.

 

Just waiting on Dec 9 you guys can keep arguing. Giving me good points to bring up in court.

I'm not going to talk about who is at fault in the accident at all and IF they do I will politely ask them why they are talking about that we are here to figure out if i ran a stop sign.

I'm hoping i can handle this my self. I'm tired of this bullshit but im not going to pay for a lawyer because thats just like paying the ticket. Im only 19yo i attend college and work part time. My money is VERY valuable to me.

 

There are lawyers who specifically argue tickets. They can actually be much cheaper for many reasons. One they cost about the same as a "business lunch," so I am told. The cost of a ticket is more than just paying the ticket. Keep in mind a ticket on your record can make it so your insurance will go up. Since you are only 19, your insurance is already high enough without adding tickets. You may be able to have it taken off your record by doing traffic school, however that is yet another thing you will have to pay for and it is a couple of painfully long days out of your life.

With that said, you might want to look into a local lawyer who specializes in tickets. On the other hand just showing up for court will quite often lead to a lowered ticket price, removal of point from your record but full price, etc. So up to you, but I would look into the lawyer. I have only heard good things, but have not had tried it yet, as I have luckily been able to avoid accidents and getting caught for the past four years. Good luck!

 

I would have been pissed just like u but mainly because your car is so sexy and he damaged it. Hope u win.

 

HELLLLOOOOOOO

Well an update on this case ISS

Went this morning and the cop didn't show again... now there wasting my time making me late for work now twice.

They offered me a guilty plea.. again. I said no Not Guilty. If he doesnt show next time it's thrown out if he does show. I win... because this is all bullshit!

 

How many tries do 'they' get? Is the law requesting postponements or is the cop just a 'no show'.

If you had a lawyer you would have been out of there the first no show.
10 to 1 they get you on round three. The court is toying with you.

 

How are you not guilty? You stopped at a stopp sign, proceded on your way, then you saw someone turn behind you and decided to stop instead of giving it more gas to make sure he didn't hit you. The way you've described this, makes it sounds as tho you left him no choice but to hit you.

 

The case isn't about him causing an accident (to which, I agree with you, stopping for no reason).

The case is about him getting a ticket for "failure to stop" at the stop sign.

But, in the end... its possible that the stopping after crossing the intersection makes the cop think he didn't stop at the sign.

As far as I'm concerned, its a toss up on how the judge would rule. The cop didn't witness anything and Ciggy doesn't have any unbiased witnesses.

 

Unless the cop lies and says he saw me run a stop sign. I am not guilty. It doesn't matter who cause the accident read the whole thread. What don't you get.

They sent me a stop sign ticket. I agree i partly cause the accident so i payed for my damages and that was that. If the guy wasn't touching my back bumper he wouldn't have hit me. If he stopped at the stop sign and kept going he would have been going slow enough to not hit me. If he was going slow he would have more time to react and NOT HIT ME.

It was a 4 way stop. He should have way behind me, especially coming from a different side of the intersection.

but again this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACCIDENT

They issued me a stop sign ticket after the fact for who knows what reason. I didn't run a stop sign. Making me not guilty. Nor do they have any proof I could have ran the stop sign.

 

They have 3 times to "no-show"

If I paid a lawyer I could have just paid the prosecutor for a no point ticket.

But since I'm not guilty I wont be spending any money at their court house. If I do loose I will appeal it. Thanks for the advice though. I wish I had a lawyer in the family to help for free.

 

Not an attorney but I've dealt with this before and I have a darn good track record fighting tickets. Here are my thoughts:

1. The cop wasn't there. If he tries to enter the other driver's written declaration into evidence or says something like "I was told that..." you IMMEDIATELY say "Objection, your honor. This is hearsay evidence, I move to have it excluded" or something similar. Because it's in the Constitution that you have a right to confront witnesses against you. So unless the other driver or other witness to what happened is there for you to cross-examine (ask questions) you have a right to prevent that from being entered into evidence. But you have to object. If you don't, you lose the right to complain about it and the judge will take the hearsay evidence into consideration. You also want to stop it as soon as possible because regardless of it being excluded, you can't erase it from the judge's memory.

2. If you were not on the phone, bring your cell phone bill or other evidence of your phone calls, so if someone does claim you were on the phone you can refute it.

3. If you had anyone else in the car, bring your witness. Make sure you and the witness agree on what happened, but don't make it look like you synchronized your stories.

4. Do not ever argue with the judge. Being 19 you've already got one strike against you in the eyes of most judges.

5. If you have a perfect driving record, you might want to mention it.

6. Be prepared for the officer to claim he WAS there and witnessed it. If that does happen, ask for a continuance (a delay- if the state got two you should be entitled to one) in order to subpoena the officer's records for that time period to prove he was elsewhere at the time.

7. If the officer says he was there but he's reading from his notes, ask to see his notes. He'll say no. Then tell him to put them away- they're not evidence unless he introduces them as evidence (he won't). He has to testify what he remembers, not what he wrote down. (he should refresh his memory from his notes before the case is called but they don't always do that)

8. Wear a suit. The judge will be wearing one and the officer will be in a suit or his uniform. Don't be under-dressed. This is not a time to be business-casual, even if you normally wear shorts and a t-shirt to work. If you have to come straight from work, bring the suit and change in the bathroom before the trial.

9. The judge will believe every single thing the cop says. If the cop says you were driving a Rolls Royce and not a Honda Fit, the judge will believe him. If he says he saw you driving 180 mph in a car whose top speed is 120, the judge will believe him. If the cop says he remembers every single thing about this ticket but doesn't remember anything else that happened that day, the judge will believe him. If he says you cursed at him in German and you don't speak a word of German, well, you get the idea.

So if the cop lies, don't call him a liar. You have to prove he's lying.

10. Diagrams are good, they show you believe your story and you know exactly what happened.

11. Be prepared for the judge to give you only a few seconds to state your case before he cuts you off. He can interrupt you, and you can't interrupt him (well, you can, but you'll be found guilty).

12. Try to remain calm and remember that your downside is only the price of a ticket. Nobody's going to behead you or put you in jail, it's just money, and not all that much of it.

 

Thank you very much. A lot of good points. Also gave me some information being this is the first time I've had to go to court to refute a ticket. The 911 call was placed after the accident. This proves no police were on scene until after the accident.

Also the police officer checked my phone calls on the spot and I will remind him he found nothing incriminating. I feel like I have a good case working for me.

Also I know it is not A LOT of money but, being 19, attending college and working only part time every penny counts.


The first time I went they told me the cop couldnt be present but he was in fact standing outside the court room. This leads me to think that he wont show up next time and we wont even have a trial, but if we do I feel I am prepared. My witness is also a 35 year old man that I work with. Not another kid.

 

Couple of additional points:
1. Never hurts to point out that you're going to college and working to pay for it. Most (though not all) judges have gone to law school and they value higher education.

2. Listen to all the cases before yours. Get a feel for how the judge works, if he'll let you talk or cut you off, etc.

3. Make damn sure your phone is OFF the whole time you're in court (not just during your case). In fact make sure it's hidden- if you're the kind of guy who walks around with a phone clipped to your belt the judge is going to think you're also the kind of guy who talks on it when he's driving.

And don't show up wearing headphones. Don't listen to headphones during the other cases. Listen to the other cases!

 

Good advice from B_C for all - and - it's universal. Life is so much a package deal.


Respect that at all times...

 

If your state is anything like California, then peace officers can issue tickets on collisions they weren't present on as long as they have been trained on basic traffic collision investigation and event reconstruction. Most officers in CA are.

Second, I suggest you read the exact language of the law you have been cited for violating. Many traffic laws have a catchall phrase at the end like, " and shall not proceed into the intersection until it is reasonable safe to do so." with verbiage like that it's phenomenally easy to cite you for the offense based on the following line of reasoning:
1. Traffic collisions are inherently unsafe
2. You entered the intersection at which time...
3. You were involved in a collision
4. Your actions were unsafe


That will be the basic argument against you. You really must read the law for which you've been cited or you won't even know what your there to contest.

 

If your state is anything like California, then peace officers can issue tickets on collisions they weren't present on as long as they have been trained on basic traffic collision investigation and event reconstruction. Most officers in CA are.

Second, I suggest you read the exact language of the law you have been cited for violating. Many traffic laws have a catchall phrase at the end like, " and shall not proceed into the intersection until it is reasonable safe to do so." with verbiage like that it's phenomenally easy to cite you for the offense based on the following line of reasoning:
1. Traffic collisions are inherently unsafe
2. You entered the intersection at which time...
3. You were involved in a collision
4. Your actions were unsafe


That will be the basic argument against you. You really must read the law for which you've been cited or you won't even know what your there to contest.

 

Again with this comment.

I fully understand your situation. But you insist on believing that the two (accident and ticket) are separate issues. For the cop, it isn't a separate issue. As far as the cop is concerned, you "running" a stop, and the following attempt at "covering it up" led to your accident. And that's what I'm telling you.

If you refuse to acknowledge what your "opponent" (the cop) is thinking, then you are only hampering your chances of winning the court case.

If you can get the cop to tell the judge why he issued you a ticket (because he assumed you ran the stop and therefore caused the accident because of it), then you can try to prove that they are separate, and that you stopped AGAIN, for no other reason than you panicked because you (mistakenly) assumed the turning vehicle would hit you. Which ironically, caused the other vehicle to actually hit you. Plead to the judge that you're only 19 and still gaining experience in driving.

 

i believe you need to sign a failure to stop a stop sign ticket for it to be issued no?

i have never heard of a failure to stop at a stop sign ticket being sent in through the mail

then again im in california, not sure how it works over there for you.