running red light? lawyer or no lawyer

So this isn't your first time?

On average a driver will get a ticket every five years or more. That said, it's cheaper to pay and move on. A couple points won't hurt a thing and will disappear in three years. Unless you are facing a serious traffic offense or risk losing your license or future jobs, the first ticket is a give me and move on. That's the way I look at it.

But good luck with your fight.

 

Can anyone recommend a traffic lawyer in or near Valencia, Ca. that can beat a lane violation... passing in the third lane

 

You excuse is that you were driving too fast for the road conditions? That will get you more problems then running the red light.

Where was the cop? Ask for any video he has of the event. If he doesn't have it then you entered the intersection while the light was still yellow. You could not safely come to a stop before the light changed and therefore your duty to safety overrides the law to stop.

Also you can try to point out that you were so drunk that you didn't know what you were doing.

 

roadlaw is who ooida refers.

google roadlaw

 

Most of what you suggest that the driver ask for is pretty good advice. Complaints against the cop, statistical sheets showng types of charges and locations is probably not the type of thing that the court will order to be disclosed. It is not probative evidence as to whether the driver is properly charged. You may annoy the the judge asking for those things, and he is likely to be one adjudicating the case. If the prosecutor certifies the offense as a petty misdemeanor for sentencing purpose, then there is no right to a jury trial because the defendant cannot be put in jail if convicted. Thus, the judge would be the trier of the facts. The other things that you suggest the driver ask for though are perfectly reasonable discovery requests, although the request may be denied, in part.

Overall, your advice has been pretty good.

Paul Taylor
Attorney at Law.

 

I remember when that was done. But, without having read the decision for a while, I believe that was because in Minnesota, the charge was made with only a photograph of the license plate and not of the driver. Thus, there was no evidence sufficient to show that the defendant charged was actually operating the vehicle identified through the photograph of the plate. The Minnesota case would have some precedential value but would not be controlling on the Courts in other states, although they could be persuaded by that.

 

It is the prosecution which has the burden. Why through yourself on the mercy of the Court? For example, I had a speeding case I had a couple of years ago, the Cop testified that the radar was turned on and that he witnesses the car at a high rate of speed. He never testified that he used the two tuning forks at the start and end of his shift to test if the radar is working properly. This is required for a radar citation in Minnesota. He never estimated the speed of the vehicle. Judge dismissed the charge.

Some small town prosecutors are used to people pleading guilty to the charge, or to a reduced charge. They are not always competent trial attorneys or they are often poorly prepared due to heavy case loads. In the case of traffic tickets, prosecutors often "wing it." This is not always the case but sometimes it is that way and the defendant wins.