UPDATE: 2-0 on tickets

[bing_oh]

No he doesn't. He has an issue with stupid technicalities and the way the court system allows the inane maneuverings to tire the other party out enough to give up. Which is what happened in your case.

1- you were guilty
2- court has to assue you are innocent until proven guilty.
3- #2 means the government has to do the work to prove #1
4- your lawyer just uses meaningless motions or time wasting tactics to complicate #3
5- at some point the court realizes that it's not worth the time/money spent to pursue.

That is more administrative than real court.
Just like many times people or the state settle to skip the hassle and money spent lawyering through a legitimate case.
That still doesn't mean justice was done. In fact, as much as I disagree with HOV lanes, justice was thwarted in this thread. The people were injured and likely will continue to be (by current legal definition) as you keep "breaking the "law"".

Thank you, Autobahn. You made my point very well.

[bing_oh]

How old are you, sparkplug?

12

[GoCougs]

I'll agree with that. I don't think you get the point. But I see discussing things here is pointless. It's is silly to argue with a man who's back his points up with handcuffs, a taser, a 40 S&W, and dozen donuts. Don't Krispy Kreme me.  I just made a point, I'm not trying to argue. Here let me just walk away and you can finish chewing Coug's a new one. I won't make any more post in this thread. You can have the last word because you're so mature and grown up. Careful though I might be pulling reverse psychology on you. I haven't decided yet.

Sorry Cougs, you need a lawyer here as well. 

I think this post goes a bit far. Bing and I are simply having a good ole row about this topic, nothing more.

[dazzleman]

I think this post goes a bit far. Bing and I are simply having a good ole row about this topic, nothing more.

Cougs, you need to get another ticket.  These threads are hilarious.

[bing_oh]

"Hi Joe, I got the officer's report suppressed, after that there was no evidence."

How the hell do you get a report suppressed? A report isn't evidence...it's documentation for the officer, whose testomony is evidentiary. Like I said, I'm guessing the officer didn't show for the suppression hearing and a written statement can't stand on its own without testomony (with a few exceptions). Saying that she got the report suppressed wouldn't really be accurate, though.

[bing_oh]

I think this post goes a bit far. Bing and I are simply having a good ole row about this topic, nothing more.

I was thinking it was more of a ballyhoo. Or a ruckus.

[GoCougs]

No he doesn't. He has an issue with stupid technicalities and the way the court system allows the inane maneuverings to tire the other party out enough to give up. Which is what happened in your case.

1- you were guilty
2- court has to assue you are innocent until proven guilty.
3- #2 means the government has to do the work to prove #1
4- your lawyer just uses meaningless motions or time wasting tactics to complicate #3
5- at some point the court realizes that it's not worth the time/money spent to pursue.

That is more administrative than real court.
Just like many times people or the state settle to skip the hassle and money spent lawyering through a legitimate case.
That still doesn't mean justice was done. In fact, as much as I disagree with HOV lanes, justice was thwarted in this thread. The people were injured and likely will continue to be (by current legal definition) as you keep "breaking the "law"".

Well, not only is the above a mythical layman's POV of how court works (most notably, a judge can simply choose to deny a motion if it is without merit), you can at least have solace that many join you and bing in wishing away the court system. Rue the day you get your wish, but as we all know, it ain't never going to happen.

[GoCougs]

No, actually I've been told  that I apparently don't willingly suffer fools.  This is just further proof of that.   

Oh, boo, you like stepping into the ring.

[dazzleman]

Well, not only is the above a mythical layman's POV of how court works (most notably, a judge can simply choose to deny a motion if it is without merit), you can at least have solace that many join you and bing in wishing away the court system. Rue the day you get your wish, but as we all know, it ain't never going to happen.

Let's not kid ourselves, Cougs.  Your ticket wasn't really dismissed on legal grounds.  It was either a favor from the judge or prosecutor to your lawyer, or some other type of horse-trading that had nothing to do with whether you were innocent or guilty.

We don't want to wish away the court system; we just want it to function for its intended purpose.

It's not a big deal when this happens with a bs traffic ticket like yours, but when it happens with more serious cases, the consequences can be horrific.

[GoCougs]

Cougs, you need to get another ticket.  These threads are hilarious.

Yeah, this one had a lot more legs than I would have guessed...

[bing_oh]

Well, not only is the above a mythical layman's POV of how court works (most notably, a judge can simply choose to deny a motion if it is without merit), you can at least have solace that many join you and bing in wishing away the court system. Rue the day you get your wish, but as we all know, it ain't never going to happen.

Actually, Autobahn's description is pretty accurate. And the chances of a judge denying a motion, especially something like a motion to suppress, because he/she believes it's without merit is pretty slim...doing so would open up all kinds of doors for appeal, and no judge likes to have his rulings appealed. It's normally easier for the judge to just hear the motion.

As for wishing the court system away, you're really reaching again. I'd never wish the court system away. I happen to be a huge supporter of rights and the courts are a vital part of protecting those rights. For example, I hate the moves the the feds have been doing since 9/11 in cutting the judiciary out of issues where there should celarly be judicial review. But, I'm also a huge supporter of personal responsibility and hate how people manipulate the system...people manipulating the system is just as bad as the government doing it.

[dazzleman]

Yeah, this one had a lot more legs than I would have guessed...

And, the best part is, there's another ticket out there with a court date coming up.  We need full details on that one, too....

[GoCougs]

How the hell do you get a report suppressed? A report isn't evidence...it's documentation for the officer, whose testomony is evidentiary. Like I said, I'm guessing the officer didn't show for the suppression hearing and a written statement can't stand on its own without testomony (with a few exceptions). Saying that she got the report suppressed wouldn't really be accurate, though.

Let's not kid ourselves, Cougs.  Your ticket wasn't really dismissed on legal grounds.  It was either a favor from the judge or prosecutor to your lawyer, or some other type of horse-trading that had nothing to do with whether you were innocent or guilty.

We don't want to wish away the court system; we just want it to function for its intended purpose.

It's not a big deal when this happens with a bs traffic ticket like yours, but when it happens with more serious cases, the consequences can be horrific.

By extension of these two posts, had the LEO shown up things may have gone quite differently, ergo, the LEO should have shown. Sounds like a simple easy process to follow, yet the city couldn't perform. Sounds like the court system worked perfectly - no horse trading (quite the opposite as this is all this attorney does, and she is well known in the area, and if anything her equity with the courts is somewhere between zero and none) just set known rules both sides know and both sides play.

[dazzleman]

By extension of these two posts, had the LEO shown up things may have gone quite differently, ergo, the LEO should have shown. Sounds like a simple easy process to follow, yet the city couldn't perform. Sounds like the court system worked perfectly - no horse trading (quite the opposite as this is all this attorney does, and she is well known in the area, and if anything her equity with the courts is somewhere between zero and none) just set known rules both sides know and both sides play.

The LEO probably agreed not to show up, as part of a larger quid pro quo.  That type of stuff happens all the time.  Friends of mine have made deals with the LEO who ticketed them right outside the courtroom, and then the LEO either doesn't show up or develops amnesia when questioned about the case.

When you have a lawyer who's working a number of cases, it's super easy to arrange that type of scenario.

[TurboDan]

By extension of these two posts, had the LEO shown up things may have gone quite differently, ergo, the LEO should have shown.

Right, and in the process, the LEO would get paid OT courtesy of the taxpayers, all so he or she could be there to testify on a baseless motion that was filed for the sole purpose of hoping the LEO would not show up.

[TurboDan]

Let's not kid ourselves, Cougs.  Your ticket wasn't really dismissed on legal grounds.  It was either a favor from the judge or prosecutor to your lawyer, or some other type of horse-trading that had nothing to do with whether you were innocent or guilty.

We don't want to wish away the court system; we just want it to function for its intended purpose.

It's not a big deal when this happens with a bs traffic ticket like yours, but when it happens with more serious cases, the consequences can be horrific.

Most municipal court judges are simply lawyers from the local community. Generally, they're a friend of somebody on the city council and they're appointed judge in the town so they can make a few extra bucks a week overseeing these silly traffic and low-level criminal cases. They get appointed on a yearly basis at a contracted rate.

That's where the lawyer comes in. He or she knows the judge, probably has worked with the judge before, probably sees the judge socially at county bar association dinners, etc.

[dazzleman]

Most municipal court judges are simply lawyers from the local community. Generally, they're a friend of somebody on the city council and they're appointed judge in the town so they can make a few extra bucks a week overseeing these silly traffic and low-level criminal cases. They get appointed on a yearly basis at a contracted rate.

That's where the lawyer comes in. He or she knows the judge, probably has worked with the judge before, probably sees the judge socially at county bar association dinners, etc.

Exactly.  It's a very incestuous system, and the merits of the cases have little to do with which tickets get dismissed.

[850CSi]

This is interesting. I work in a DA's office and I'll probably be trying a few speeding tickets this semester. Doesn't seem to be the same way here as where y'all are from.

[TurboDan]

This is interesting. I work in a DA's office and I'll probably be trying a few speeding tickets this semester. Doesn't seem to be the same way here as where y'all are from.

DA's office doesn't handle traffic tickets in NJ. They go through the local, municipal court. Even when you're ticketed by a state trooper, the case is heard in the municipal court in whatever town the highway was running through where you were ticketed. The municipal prosecutor is chosen the same way judges are - simply an annual appointment by the city council. In fact, in many towns, they'll actually solicit bids from attorneys who want to be prosecutor and the low bidder will get the job.

In NJ, the DA's office only handles indictable offenses (NJ's term for felonies), which go through Superior Court.

[GoCougs]

Right, and in the process, the LEO would get paid OT courtesy of the taxpayers, all so he or she could be there to testify on a baseless motion that was filed for the sole purpose of hoping the LEO would not show up.

I never concerned myself with taxpayers; I'm in it for me.

If it's baseless, why does the process exist?

[GoCougs]

Most municipal court judges are simply lawyers from the local community. Generally, they're a friend of somebody on the city council and they're appointed judge in the town so they can make a few extra bucks a week overseeing these silly traffic and low-level criminal cases. They get appointed on a yearly basis at a contracted rate.

That's where the lawyer comes in. He or she knows the judge, probably has worked with the judge before, probably sees the judge socially at county bar association dinners, etc.

The LEO probably agreed not to show up, as part of a larger quid pro quo.  That type of stuff happens all the time.  Friends of mine have made deals with the LEO who ticketed them right outside the courtroom, and then the LEO either doesn't show up or develops amnesia when questioned about the case.

When you have a lawyer who's working a number of cases, it's super easy to arrange that type of scenario.

Exactly.  It's a very incestuous system, and the merits of the cases have little to do with which tickets get dismissed.

Oh, for crying out loud you guys. This is your most dour indictment yet of the court system; this is not how it works.

Also, this was in county district court (the largest county in the state, which is to say it has a robust court system).

[bing_oh]

If it's baseless, why does the process exist?

As the system is intended to work, such motions aren't supposed to be baseless. There are numerous legitimate legal reasons for things like motions to suppress. Over time, certain members of our legal system have corrupted these processes to their own nefarious purposes, well outside of the scope of what they were intended for. There are defense lawyers who will literally file every possible type of motion on ever little thing, even if they know these motions are totally baseless, just to bury the prosecution in paperwork, generate numerous pointless hearing where various people will have to appear or the case will be dismissed, and to create billable hours for themselves. Of course, you already know this...your lawyer is doing it, you know she's doing it any why, and you choose her because she does it and it gets you off of charges for which you're guilty. If we're gonna have a discussion, at least be honest about it.

[bing_oh]

DA's office doesn't handle traffic tickets in NJ. They go through the local, municipal court. Even when you're ticketed by a state trooper, the case is heard in the municipal court in whatever town the highway was running through where you were ticketed. The municipal prosecutor is chosen the same way judges are - simply an annual appointment by the city council. In fact, in many towns, they'll actually solicit bids from attorneys who want to be prosecutor and the low bidder will get the job.

In NJ, the DA's office only handles indictable offenses (NJ's term for felonies), which go through Superior Court.

We have a slightly different system where I live. While the municipal court still hears traffic offenses (as well as all misdemeanors), the municipal court judge is an coutywide elected position. Obviously, he was and is a lawyer and practiced in the county before he was elected, so there are plenty of connections to other lawyers. Backroom deals do get made and plenty of cases get pled out because of the connections between lawyers.

[GoCougs]

As the system is intended to work, such motions aren't supposed to be baseless. There are numerous legitimate legal reasons for things like motions to suppress. Over time, certain members of our legal system have corrupted these processes to their own nefarious purposes, well outside of the scope of what they were intended for. There are defense lawyers who will literally file every possible type of motion on ever little thing, even if they know these motions are totally baseless, just to bury the prosecution in paperwork, generate numerous pointless hearing where various people will have to appear or the case will be dismissed, and to create billable hours for themselves. Of course, you already know this...your lawyer is doing it, you know she's doing it any why, and you choose her because she does it and it gets you off of charges for which you're guilty. If we're gonna have a discussion, at least be honest about it.

IMO, you consider these actions baseless because you don't understand the necessary philosophical underpinnings of the process (= adversarial court system whereby the duty is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove non guilt).

You're probably the same type who gets all riled up about "tort reform" and limits on medical malpractice award, also both baseless positions IMO (you irked I know a couple of medical malpractice attorneys?). The US has by far the best court system in the world, and all sides should be glad for it.

I chose her because of recommendation; I didn't/don't have a clue what she does other than she wins ~95% of her traffic cases. I couldn't care less how she wins, as long as she is not unethical or criminal about it (I checked the state bar and she had no issues).

[bing_oh]

IMO, you consider these actions baseless because you don't understand the necessary philosophical underpinnings of the process (= adversarial court system whereby the duty is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove non guilt).

I work in the justice system, Cougs. I understand the process...both "philosophically" and the realities of it...much, much better than you'll ever hope to.

You attempt to hold some kind of moral "philosophical" high ground on this discussion is a dead end with me. We both know the truth...you just don't want to openly admit that you're playing the system.

[TurboDan]

IMO, you consider these actions baseless because you don't understand the necessary philosophical underpinnings of the process (= adversarial court system whereby the duty is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove non guilt).

But that's the point. The state could easily prove your guilt. I assume there's a dash cam video of you doing it. A sworn police officer pulled over the vehicle and took your valid license and confirmed you were the driver of the vehicle. Done. Proven. There's no question of your guilt. No extenuating circumstances. And I highly doubt the officer had a bias against white guys who drive boring midsize sedans.

If the justice system was as clean and neat as you believe, there would have been a speedy trial and the state would have easily proved you committed the offense. But because the system is NOT clean and neat, and is easily manipulated, it gets bogged down (at a cost to the taxpayer) and as a result, the ticket gets tossed on either a technicality or a wink-wink, nudge-nudge favor, having nothing to do with your guilt, which could have easily been proven.

[GoCougs]

But that's the point. The state could easily prove your guilt. I assume there's a dash cam video of you doing it. A sworn police officer pulled over the vehicle and took your valid license and confirmed you were the driver of the vehicle. Done. Proven. There's no question of your guilt. No extenuating circumstances. And I highly doubt the officer had a bias against white guys who drive boring midsize sedans.

If the justice system was as clean and neat as you believe, there would have been a speedy trial and the state would have easily proved you committed the offense. But because the system is NOT clean and neat, and is easily manipulated, it gets bogged down (at a cost to the taxpayer) and as a result, the ticket gets tossed on either a technicality or a wink-wink, nudge-nudge favor, having nothing to do with your guilt, which could have easily been proven.

Of course the state couldn't easily prove my guilt; it would have if it could.

And you too want a "clean and neat" state-centric administrative system, with a bit of the surveillance state sprinkled on top. This is not a good thing.

[GoCougs]

I work in the justice system, Cougs. I understand the process...both "philosophically" and the realities of it...much, much better than you'll ever hope to.

You attempt to hold some kind of moral "philosophical" high ground on this discussion is a dead end with me. We both know the truth...you just don't want to openly admit that you're playing the system.

No moral high ground at all - I'm only pointong out that by you what you've written here you want  state-centric administrative system, and that's simply not how it works, nor will ever work.

[hotrodalex]

Of course the state couldn't easily prove my guilt; it would have if it could.

The officer pulled you over after spotting you in the HOV lane and it was most likely recorded. What would be better proof than that?

If they can't prove that, I don't trust them to make any judgement on murder cases.

[dazzleman]

No moral high ground at all - I'm only pointong out that by you what you've written here you want  state-centric administrative system, and that's simply not how it works, nor will ever work.

Cougs, you're just not being honest here.  You broke the law many times, got busted, were guilty as hell, but manipulated a weak and corrupt system (at a very high cost) to drop the charge.

Now you're trying to make it into some type of moral crusade.  It isn't.  You tried to weasel and buy your way out of a ticket and you succeeded, at a high cost.  But that doesn't make you some type of freedom fighter.