W
WestOfTheFields
Guest
I went to court preparing to have the motion ruled on by the judge, but the officer failed to appear so my case was dismissed. Of course, the Judge did not rule on the motion.
About 1/3 of the cases were dismissed due to officer failing to appear, is this normal in CA? Seems like a lot of dismissals to me.
I sat through some of the cases ruled on by the judge. I was impressed with his sensitivity and willingness to extend payment plans and community service. He dismissed several cases where he believed the defendants over the police where the police couldn't clearly see everything that happened.
However, I was disappointed in that it was obvious in 2 instances where a police officer had multiple cases that were the exact same location and offense. In one, the intersection has a RR track running through it and it is confusing to the drivers where the stop sign means to stop. The other was a 25 MPH speed zone that is not clearly marked. It was obvious that the judge was very familiar with these trap locations as he didn't need to hear very much of the story to find "guilty." What is disturbing is if the police are chartered to "serve and protect" then how is setting up traffic traps consistent with this? Why not do the right thing and get the city to fix the signs so people can clearly tell what they are supposed to do? Seems to be data that supports the conventional idea that police forces are more concerned about collecting fines than catching real criminals. When will departments wake up and realize that this causes public anger against officers, and the $ they collect are not worth price in public distrust and anger.
Anyway, thanks for the motion, it gave me the courage to face the court over this matter, an experience that was enlightening.
WOTF
About 1/3 of the cases were dismissed due to officer failing to appear, is this normal in CA? Seems like a lot of dismissals to me.
I sat through some of the cases ruled on by the judge. I was impressed with his sensitivity and willingness to extend payment plans and community service. He dismissed several cases where he believed the defendants over the police where the police couldn't clearly see everything that happened.
However, I was disappointed in that it was obvious in 2 instances where a police officer had multiple cases that were the exact same location and offense. In one, the intersection has a RR track running through it and it is confusing to the drivers where the stop sign means to stop. The other was a 25 MPH speed zone that is not clearly marked. It was obvious that the judge was very familiar with these trap locations as he didn't need to hear very much of the story to find "guilty." What is disturbing is if the police are chartered to "serve and protect" then how is setting up traffic traps consistent with this? Why not do the right thing and get the city to fix the signs so people can clearly tell what they are supposed to do? Seems to be data that supports the conventional idea that police forces are more concerned about collecting fines than catching real criminals. When will departments wake up and realize that this causes public anger against officers, and the $ they collect are not worth price in public distrust and anger.
Anyway, thanks for the motion, it gave me the courage to face the court over this matter, an experience that was enlightening.
WOTF