Ticket via AccuTrak, missing some details

[rampantlystable]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

Alright, so I was pulled over tonight and cited for doing 60 in a 45, and the officer listed AccuTrak as the method. He listed a time, but he didn't list the distance traveled. I intend to plead not guilty so that, at the bare minimum, I can get the points reduced, because I cannot afford to have my insurance hiked up at this point(or any point) in time. The zone he was monitoring doesn't have any lighting and it was very dark out when he pulled me over. I am wondering if I may have a good standpoint to use by arguing that there was no distance traveled listed on the citation. Anyone with any experience with this? Thank you!

 

[FlyingRon]

It matters not what he wrote on the citation, only what he testifies in court. The magistrate court (where ticket cases are usually initially heard) doesn't really provide any discovery options.

 

[Zigner]

...I cannot afford to have my insurance hiked up at this point(or any point) in time.

If this is truly the case, then you would be wise to actually obey the law. Really.

 

[HighwayMan]

The zone he was monitoring doesn't have any lighting and it was very dark out when he pulled me over...

And that's relevant for what reason?

 

[rampantlystable]

And that's relevant for what reason?

Wouldn't it be a factor in if he was able to see the marking lines?

 

[FlyingRon]

Wouldn't it be a factor in if he was able to see the marking lines?

What makes you think he couldn't see the lines. He doesn't actually have to see the painted lines, just some landmark at the appropriate distance.
You can certainly ask him in court, but his testimony that he could see the distance indications is going to swamp anything you say.

 

[rampantlystable]

I was under the impression that in order to for it to be accurate, he would need to see the landmarks used for timing. Also, why wouldn't the lack of a cited distance matter on the citation? I thought the entire basis of my charge revolves around what was listed on the ticket.

 

[FlyingRon]

I was under the impression that in order to for it to be accurate, he would need to see the landmarks used for timing. Also, why wouldn't the lack of a cited distance matter on the citation? I thought the entire basis of my charge revolves around what was listed on the ticket.

You're not listening. The landmarks are not necessarily the stripes on the ground. All he has to do is have ones that he knows the distance between.

 

[HighwayMan]

Besides, I would think that your headlamps did a good enough job of illuminating the pavement markings and/or landmarks.

 

[rampantlystable]

You're not listening. The landmarks are not necessarily the stripes on the ground. All he has to do is have ones that he knows the distance between.

And maybe I'm not being clear, either. I understand that the landmark doesn't necessarily NEED to be lines, but regardless, wouldn't a cloudy night with no moon affect the visibility? And my main argument is that there is no distance traveled cited on the ticket. Even if there aren't stripes and there are two landmarks, the time listed is not put against a distance traveled, which is what I am asking about.

 

[FlyingRon]

And I told you...nothing written on the ticket is determining. You can go to court and question the distance traveled, time observed, and speed.

Again, he saw your car, he will testify he saw the landmarks, you'll lose that point. As pointed out, your headlights, ambient light, whatever. If he can see you, he can see the marks.