Looking up exact laws

[HighwayMan]

The testimony of the officer is evidence, so that means that his "word" is evidence? Wouldn't that be problimatic especially since officer's now have quotas, therefore directly giving them a biased position on the case. Doesn't the officer need to prove that I am guilty before I am charged, because I have the right of "due processing"?

"Now have quotas"? Oh really?

The officer's testimony is all the evidence required to convict you. PERIOD. "Due processing"? LOL You're trying to sound sophisticated but end up sounding foolish.

 

[HighwayMan]

I was curious on how to formally address a law, in case I want to use one

You call it "sir" and ask it for permission.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

"Now have quotas"? Oh really?

The officer's testimony is all the evidence required to convict you. PERIOD. "Due processing"? LOL You're trying to sound sophisticated but end up sounding foolish.

Are you kidding? I appreciate the help, I am just asking questions, I'm not trying to debate anyone because I have done little to no research on law. I just don't understand how someone can be charged of something, solely from the prosecutors opinion

"Due Processing" I am just trying to say that people have a presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, so why would someone have to defend themselfs before they're even proven guilty

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

If you wait to defend yourself until after your have been proven guilty you will be found guilty.

The officer is going to say he saw you with a phone. You will then have to defend your action either by showing somehow that the officer didn't see you with a phone showing that when you were seen with the phone it wasn't illegal.

 

[Zigner]

Are you kidding? I appreciate the help, I am just asking questions, I'm not trying to debate anyone because I have done little to no research on law. I just don't understand how someone can be charged of something, solely from the prosecutors opinion

The police officer is not the prosecutor. He is merely an expert and totally impartial witness who has no stake at all in the outcome of your case. Do you have any impartial witnesses to testify for you who are considered experts and have absolutely no stake in the outcome of the case?

"Due Processing" I am just trying to say that people have a presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, so why would someone have to defend themselfs before they're even proven guilty

The phrase you're looking for is "due process".

 

[YouWouldKnow]

Thanks for the responses guys, I never knew that a police officer is an impartial expert/witness and I won't get a presumption of innocence. I believe you guys, it just seems very unjust to me, I thought that people had more judicial rights then that. It's like someone suing somebody else without having to show any proof but then the other person gets convicted because they don't have any proof showing their innocence. But like I said I believe you guys, I'm just confused why I wouldn't get a presumption of innocence. It gives the officer the upper hand, and it seems like they could charge anyone with whatever they want and win almost every time because of how hard it is to prove innocence. For example an officer could say someone punched him with no evidence but how in the world would someone be able to prove that the officer is wrong. Also officer's aren't robots/emotionless and some even have quotas, which effects their career and therefore family so it doesn't seem fair for them to be impartial... Btw, thanks for the help guys, I appreciate it

 

[YouWouldKnow]

"Now have quotas"? Oh really?

The officer's testimony is all the evidence required to convict you. PERIOD. "Due processing"? LOL You're trying to sound sophisticated but end up sounding foolish.

"Unfortunately, outlawing traffic ticket quotas in some states has not deterred some police departments from still imposing quotas under a different name. Some departments use the name “station average” to keep track of traffic tickets given out by police officers, causing a lot of issues.

California banned ticket quotas over 10 years ago, but some police departments decided they were above the law and are now being sued by some of their own officers. These departments used quotas to evaluate the performance of police officers and because of it LA must pay $8 million dollars to its own police officers. There are still additional pending cases against other police departments that have continues to break this particular law."

I'm not trying to argue but this is what I mean by quotas some states still have them and there is money and careers involved in giving tickets

 

[Zigner]

...I won't get a presumption of innocence.

You DO get a presumption of innocence. Think of it like a baseball game. First up to bat is the prosecution. They score a run based on the impartial testimony. Next up is you. You don't score any runs because you don't have impartial testimony. Nobody scores anything else the rest of the game. Who wins?

I'm going to change this a bit. First up to bat is the prosecution. They score two runs. One for having testimony (evidence) and one for the testimony (evidence) being given by an impartial witness. Next up is you. You score one run for having testimony (evidence), but you don't score anything else because your testimony (evidence) is heavily biased. During the game, nobody else scores for the rest of the game...who wins?

 

[Zigner]

"Unfortunately, outlawing traffic ticket quotas in some states has not deterred some police departments from still imposing quotas under a different name. Some departments use the name “station average” to keep track of traffic tickets given out by police officers, causing a lot of issues.

California banned ticket quotas over 10 years ago, but some police departments decided they were above the law and are now being sued by some of their own officers. These departments used quotas to evaluate the performance of police officers and because of it LA must pay $8 million dollars to its own police officers. There are still additional pending cases against other police departments that have continues to break this particular law."

I'm not trying to argue but this is what I mean by quotas some states still have them and there is money and careers involved in giving tickets

You really ought to cite your source.

ETA: I found your source and there is NOTHING in that blog to indicate objectivity or accuracy. They don't cite any source for their statistics, and they actually have a vested interest in it being true (so you pay for their services.) Not the best choice.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

You DO get a presumption of innocence. Think of it like a baseball game. First up to bat is the prosecution. They score a run based on the impartial testimony. Next up is you. You don't score any runs because you don't have impartial testimony. Nobody scores anything else the rest of the game. Who wins?

I'm going to change this a bit. First up to bat is the prosecution. They score two runs. One for having testimony (evidence) and one for the testimony (evidence) being given by an impartial witness. Next up is you. You score one run for having testimony (evidence), but you don't score anything else because your testimony (evidence) is heavily biased. During the game, nobody else scores for the rest of the game...who wins?

Thank you, that is a good way of putting it, I'm starting to understand it better now.... Before this, my plan was to basically fight the evidence that I thought the officer would present.... But now I see that I am going to have to try to prove my innocence instead, which seams way harder.... Where do you suggest that I start? looking into exact laws or looking into previous cases or a little bit of everything... Sorry I know that question is very broad

 

[YouWouldKnow]

You really ought to cite your source.

ETA: I found your source and there is NOTHING in that blog to indicate objectivity or accuracy. They don't cite any source for their statistics, and they actually have a vested interest in it being true (so you pay for their services.) Not the best choice.

I agree that the source does not seem to be that credible. But the main point I am trying to make is that the money from traffic ticket's goes to the government and the government pays for police officers and court officials, and since the distribution of funds to all the police departments and courts is not spread out completely evenly, wouldn't that make the officers and court somewhat biased? Or am I getting into something super complex that involves state laws mixed with federal laws, mixed with taxes and funding, which becomes too complex to analyse?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

It isn't that it is that complex it is just that you are talking about people, police, judges and prosecutors that all swore and oath to uphold the law and the constitution. I'm not saying there are no individuals that forget that but the majority don't.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

It isn't that it is that complex it is just that you are talking about people, police, judges and prosecutors that all swore and oath to uphold the law and the constitution. I'm not saying there are no individuals that forget that but the majority don't.

Good point I think that I was over thinking it... This makes me think of the Stanford prison experiment

 

[YouWouldKnow]

What were you charged with? It would be on the citation.
Also...what is your defense?

Okay I have a new idea for my defense, I am going to try to get the officer's dash cam footage and any other evidence that he has and then bring that to court and show that he had no footage of me with my cell phone.

Plan B is to use law:
23123.5.
(c) A handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device may be operated in a manner requiring the use of the driver’s hand while the driver is operating the vehicle only if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is mounted on a vehicle’s windshield in the same manner a portable Global Positioning System (GPS) is mounted pursuant to paragraph (12) of subdivision (b) of Section 26708 or is mounted on or affixed to a vehicle’s dashboard or center console in a manner that does not hinder the driver’s view of the road.
(2) The driver’s hand is used to activate or deactivate a feature or function of the handheld wireless telephone or wireless communications device with the motion of a single swipe or tap of the driver’s finger.

And show that my car does have a mount for my phone, and either express or prove that I only gestured with my phone and did not have it up to my ear

Or simply just use:
23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.
And show that I was not holding my phone from the officer's footage or express that that officer did not have any footage but that it would of shown if there was footage, which is not my fault that the officer did not have footage

Or even bring in my call/text log history from my cell phone provider and show that I did not make any calls around the time of the ticket.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Good luck. You will not win.