Looking up exact laws

[CdwJava]

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?

I would avoid arguing quotas at all. It's a non-starter unless you can somehow prove that the ONLY reason you got a ticket was because the officer had to meet some sort of quota, goal, or other "required" number.

As a note, local law enforcement agencies do not make money on moving violations (red light cameras being the exception). If a city wants to make money, they issue parking tickets. A $50 parking ticket makes a city about 5 to 6 times as much money as a moving ticket costing you $283.

As for footage (if it exists), there is no requirement that there be video footage of you on your cell phone for a conviction. The angle of the observation may preclude such an observation from being made by a forward mounted camera.

 

[HighwayMan]

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.

That doesn't prove it was YOUR phone that you were using.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

Good luck. You will not win.

Haha thanks man, you added a lot of insight to the post.... Are you just mad that I mentioned the stanford prison experiment?

Black people are incarcerated in state prisons at more than five times the rate of whites, according to a new report documenting rates of incarceration across the country.

Released yesterday, the Sentencing Project's latest report found that, despite promising reforms leading to reductions in the prison population, racial and ethnic disparities in the prison system continue to undermine perceptions of justice in America. Across the country, African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 5.1 times the rate for whites. In Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin, the disparity is greater than 10 to 1.

Also Black people statistically have experience longer sentencing that white people.

But you want me to believe that almost all officers/court officials are unbiased

 

[YouWouldKnow]

That doesn't prove it was YOUR phone that you were using.

That's true :/ Back to the drawing boards

 

[YouWouldKnow]

I would avoid arguing quotas at all. It's a non-starter unless you can somehow prove that the ONLY reason you got a ticket was because the officer had to meet some sort of quota, goal, or other "required" number.

As a note, local law enforcement agencies do not make money on moving violations (red light cameras being the exception). If a city wants to make money, they issue parking tickets. A $50 parking ticket makes a city about 5 to 6 times as much money as a moving ticket costing you $283.

As for footage (if it exists), there is no requirement that there be video footage of you on your cell phone for a conviction. The angle of the observation may preclude such an observation from being made by a forward mounted camera.

That clears a lot up for me, thanks. I always had the misconception that money had a big role in officers giving out tickets.


This is starting to feel like an unWinable case.... any advice?

 

[Zigner]

Haha thanks man, you added a lot of insight to the post.... Are you just mad that I mentioned the stanford prison experiment?

The Stanford Experiment is absolutely unrelated to this matter.

Black people are incarcerated in state prisons at more than five times the rate of whites, according to a new report documenting rates of incarceration across the country.

Who cares? If you had the phone in your hand, you had the phone in your hand. It really is that simple.

 

[YouWouldKnow]

The Stanford Experiment is absolutely unrelated to this matter.

Who cares? If you had the phone in your hand, you had the phone in your hand. It really is that simple.

I was just trying to respond to that guy's "Good luck, you are going to lose" comment. And as far as the Stanford experiment, I just thought of it because it shows how some people in power act, and the physiology of it all. I just thought of it because we were talking about people in power being impartial/unbiased

 

[YouWouldKnow]

Who cares? If you had the phone in your hand, you had the phone in your hand. It really is that simple.

The thing is what if I didn't have a phone in my hand? Even then it sounds like the judicial system would charge me of it just because the officer said so

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I was just trying to respond to that guy's "Good luck, you are going to lose" comment. And as far as the Stanford experiment, I just thought of it because it shows how some people in power act, and the physiology of it all. I just thought of it because we were talking about people in power being impartial/unbiased

The thing is what if I didn't have a phone in my hand? Even then it sounds like the judicial system would charge me of it just because the officer said so

There is a clinical word for this thought pattern. Paranoia. "a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution..."

You have presented no reason that this officer would simply decide one day to pick you out of traffic and decide to ticket you for something you didn't do. If he didn't just pick you out of the crowd then there will likely be a lot more people on your court date with the same sort of charge and argument that they simply didn't do it. Sooner or later a judge is going to notice this trend and so is the officer's chain of command.

Then there is the other side. Let's say this officer has it in for you in particular. There are a lot of things he could frame you for that would carry a much greater sentence than using a cell phone while driving.

The system generally works because as I posted earlier...

"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."

 

[Zigner]

The thing is what if I didn't have a phone in my hand? Even then it sounds like the judicial system would charge me of it just because the officer said so

The fact that you phrased your question as you did means you're really grasping at straws. In fact, you acknowledge that you were doing what you have been charged with. Yes, if the officer saw you doing something, he can charge you with it.

 

[AgentSmithers]

YouWouldKnow,
If you don't have a rock solid defense, which to cellphone tickets its normally the Cop's word vs. Your scenario, I would recommend contesting the ticket via Written Deceleration, See if the officer response. If he does and you lose file a De Novo to get a second shot and pray he dosnt show. If he does ask the Judge / Commissioner for a Fine Reduction in place of your trial and alot of them will say yes cuz they don't want to brother hearing your case anyways. That's a pretty standard procedure when it comes to His Word vs. Your's cases.

 

[CdwJava]

I was just trying to respond to that guy's "Good luck, you are going to lose" comment. And as far as the Stanford experiment, I just thought of it because it shows how some people in power act, and the physiology of it all. I just thought of it because we were talking about people in power being impartial/unbiased

There are so many problems with the so-called Stanford experiment that, while intriguing, its impact as meaningful research is limited. It's really fun to talk about and to attempt to extrapolate meaning from the experiment, but as valid research it is darn near useless.

 

[HighwayMan]

...to cellphone tickets its normally the Cop's word vs. Your scenario...

Just like most every other type of traffic case around? Duh!

 

[YouWouldKnow]

YouWouldKnow,
If you don't have a rock solid defense, which to cellphone tickets its normally the Cop's word vs. Your scenario, I would recommend contesting the ticket via Written Deceleration, See if the officer response. If he does and you lose file a De Novo to get a second shot and pray he dosnt show. If he does ask the Judge / Commissioner for a Fine Reduction in place of your trial and alot of them will say yes cuz they don't want to brother hearing your case anyways. That's a pretty standard procedure when it comes to His Word vs. Your's cases.

Thank you, that is really good advise. I am going to try that

 

[YouWouldKnow]

There is a clinical word for this thought pattern. Paranoia. "a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution..."

You have presented no reason that this officer would simply decide one day to pick you out of traffic and decide to ticket you for something you didn't do. If he didn't just pick you out of the crowd then there will likely be a lot more people on your court date with the same sort of charge and argument that they simply didn't do it. Sooner or later a judge is going to notice this trend and so is the officer's chain of command.

Then there is the other side. Let's say this officer has it in for you in particular. There are a lot of things he could frame you for that would carry a much greater sentence than using a cell phone while driving.

The system generally works because as I posted earlier...

"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."

Haha you really just enjoy arguing don't you?

The standard definition of Paranoia is: "a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality"

That's what you are relating this with? haha nice one

ALL I am saying is that some officer's may enjoy being in power and exercising his/her power. A police officer knew before they signed up for the job that they are going to pull people over constantly and ruin people's days constantly. So the type of people that sign up for that, may enjoy pulling people over. So it would make sense for an officer to pull someone over for talking on a cellphone because they know they are going to win the case and they get to exercise their power. Obviously I am not trying to argue this for my case. I was just confused how an officer could be treated as an impartial witness because an officer could be involved emotionally in a case..... IN GENERAL

If you want to try to argue that most officers got into their career to save people. Then you must not understand that there are way better ways to save A LOT more people than being an officer.... If you do not understand that, then I could explain it to you