Traffic ticket question

[pacrat]

What specific vehicle code section(s)are you referring to?

CaVC 23103(A)

https://www.laweekly.com/chp-to-crack-down-on-eating-applying-makeup-while-driving-not-just-cellphones/

Simply eating, reading, etc. is not by statute illegal. I misspoke regarding the "law change".

CHP and many other agencies have made policy changes to increase enforcement of 23103a, in cases where the officer deems that the operator is doing so recklessly, while being distracted by those activities.

As always Sec 4 CPC applies.

[FalconLair]

well, she's calmed down a bit - still saying she's gonna fight it

[geedavell]

She doesn't care about the money, when my mom passed away we all inherited millions from her estate and all she does now is travel around the country and enjoy it -

Is she single?????

[Ca2AZ]

At the end of the day, regardless of semantics, she only has to convince the judge she was in the right. The costs are the same if she eats the ticket, or fights and loses. But in traffic court the judge (referee in my jurisdiction), is willing to listen and take into account what she has to say.

I fought a ticket once and told the judge, "I was speeding, but not as fast as on the ticket." And she split the difference, which saved me hundreds of dollars and allowed me to go to traffic school.

[Spanky8601]

Have her spend some time in the actual traffic court. A few hours spent watching the Judge dispense justice rapid fire might allow her to rethink her fight for justice.

[blackberg]

Could she did a trial by declaration?

[FalconLair]

Could she did a trial by declaration?

i mentioned that, she refused and said she wants to tell the judge the truth

tried to explain to her that the truth doesn't always win in court, especially when it comes down to her word against an officer that is a revenue instrument

[GizmoSD]

Pacrat, please elaborate on ?CHP and many other agencies have made policy changes to increase enforcement of 23103a, in cases where the officer deems that the operator is doing so recklessly, while being distracted by those activities.?

The group would benefit from your training and experience, as well as specific knowledge on the topic.

Also, 23103(a) isn?t the code used. I know you alluded that from comparing language in the random article you found to language in the vehicle code, but alas?swing and a miss.

Is that the code you use when you cite someone for drinking a double big gulp while driving?

[blackberg]

i mentioned that, she refused and said she wants to tell the judge the truth

tried to explain to her that the truth doesn't always win in court, especially when it comes down to her word against an officer that is a revenue instrument

On a trial by declaration, you write down your truth, and the cop
Should do his, and a judge reads it and gives a decision.

If you lose, you get to ask for a new trial and be in front of a judge.

In her case , she may have the chance to give her whole
Story in a writing, while in front of the judge the judge may cut her off .

The one time I got a ticket I used TBD and actually won my case, the letter I got back said it was decided in my favor. It was a BS case that a car looked fast , but had 2 gears broken and couldn?t get past 35 on the street, took forever to get to 50, had to shift from 2nd to 4th st less than 2000 rpm.

-bb

[jorgi23]

Falcon,

You sister is 100% correct!!

Pay the fine for her and tell her they dropped the case.

End IT, before it starts

also buy her a phone holder that works with her case, so she doesn't have to
remove the phone from the case to use her holder.

this may be a silly question? why are you holding a case with no phone while driving?? honestly I don't really care, just pay it and never talk about it again!

[RacerAV]

Up to your sister obviously, but fight it if she wants to, thats why everyone gets their day in court! Money isn't the issue for her, it's the principle. I can appreciate that. Good luck to her! Sorry about your parents.

[Warbonnet]

Had a Glendale cop pull me over claiming I was using a cell phone. I said I wasn't, but he was dead set on writing me a ticket for what he said he "saw". So, when I asked him to describe the so called cell phone, and he didn't take the bait, but then I reached into my pocket to pull out my FLIP PHONE and asked him if it was what he saw. He changed his tune a bit. The only possible thing I could have had in my hand that was in my truck was a paper coffee cup in my cup holder, which was as I showed him was empty anyway.

He walked away after saying he was fine with just giving me a "warning" LOL!

Not sure if it was a pretext stop which didn't pan out, or is that today with so many people actually texting and driving, that a LEO may think pulling over everyone with the same claim of "saw you using a phone" actually ends up being a reality, even if they saw nothing?

OP, tell your sister to fight the ticket no matter the cost. If she knew she wasn't breaking the law, then stand up.

[flyer898]

Fight the ticket! You might win, and even if you don't, by the time they pay the officer overtime to appear in court, it will cost the state more to convict your sister than the fine including penalty assessments. Since tickets are usually issued for the revenue, making collection of the fine as costly as possible makes a certain kind of sense.
Even if you don't beat the ticket having the cost of collecting the fine exceed the fine amount is a win.

[SMarquez]

Not exactly. The issuing officer signs, but there is a space for the ?arresting? (or witnessing) officer to have his name written on the cite as well. It?s done frequently. For instance when a detective asks a uniformed officer to stop a vehicle and issue a cite. That detective is now the ?arresting? officer (yes I know, even though the driver is not arrested, it?s just a play on words), while the uniformed officer is the ?issuing? agent of the actual citation.

Or when an air support officer requests a marked patrol car to conduct a stop and issue a cite to a vehicle that was witnessed from the air to have run ran a red light or stop sign. The ?issuing? officer will conduct the stop and write in the name and ID of the air crew who is requesting that a motorist be issued a citation. Again, that stuff is done all the time and it does NOT require a personal signature of both officers on the cite. It only requires that the issuing officer personally write in the name and ID of the arresting (witnessing) officer. In both cases, the witnessing officer will be the one that gets subpoenaed to testify as to why he had the motorist cited in the first place. Hope that makes sense.

What I find difficult in the OP?s case however, is that if that was a CHP ?detective? as someone else suggested, I find it very troubling to know that he never exited the patrol car, while the uniformed officer did. That pretty much is NEVER going to happen. An armed plain cloths detective isn?t going to merely sit idle inside a patrol car, while his uniformed partner exits and makes contact with the car they just pulled over. It just doesn?t happen like that with any agency and for officer safety issues. Both exit the patrol car. How they make an approach on the vehicle afterward varies by individual and department policies.

My guess, it was a civilian ride-a-long. A non-sworn occupant of some sort that was told to stay in the patrol car. Easy to beat in court.

By trying to get the "partner" in court as a witness?
That's what I would try.