Lawyers Increasingly Beat Traffic Citations
Here's an interesting article that highlights the apparently growing trend of hiring legal council to contest traffic infractions.
More people in Washington are fighting — and beating — traffic tickets than ever before. More than 158,000 traffic charges were dismissed last year, twice as many as a decade ago.I heard Ms. Mucklestone on the radio yesterday on my way home. Interestingly, her main point was that most of the time the state does not have enough evidence to uphold traffic citations, and therefore must dismiss them. Gee, that sounds like a familiar argument, where have I heard it before?
Factoring in the growth in tickets issued, the dismissal rate grew over 10 years from fewer than nine out of every 100 traffic charges in 1996 to more than 13 out of every 100 last year.
There are a lot of reasons for it, but one is the emergence of a cottage industry of sorts: Attorneys like Jeannie Mucklestone and her lawyer brothers, James and John Mucklestone, have created niche practices in the art of getting people out of their tickets.
Callers to the talk radio show yesterday were fairly evenly split between "you're providing a great service" and "you're making our roads more dangerous." Personally, I say more power to her. This is still America, where we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If there's not proof of guilt, innocence must be assumed. I wish I had thought to call someone like that. It just didn't even cross my mind that I would have to, since I was innocent, and the only "evidence" the state had to the contrary was an assumption of cause based on outcome.
(Jim Davis, Seattle Times, 06.01.2006)
11 comments:
"presumed innocent until proven guilty" Once again you are showing your ignorance. Like most other states in the US, in Washington most traffic laws were decriminalized (except DUI, Reckless Driving, Eluding, Veh Homicide, Veh Assault, DWLS, and a couple others) some thirty years ago. 99% of all traffic violations are now civil, hence you can NOT be arrested for speeding, or "too fast for conditions" You can only recieve a civil fine. ie YOU ARE NOT PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY. You are not afforded an attorney, you do not have the right to remain silent, you do not have the right to a trial by your peers, The state does not have the burden of proof, etc, etc, etc. You can not be found "guilty" of any civil traffic infraction. The judge found in favor by a perponderence of the evidence (51% vs 49%, like when to people sue each other). The mere fact that you lost control of your vehicle and struck a fixed object is proof enough that you were "traveling too fast for conditions", the proof of evidence would be on you to show that someone else's actions caused you to lose control of your vehicle. Actually just the fact that you struck a fixed object is good enough. Sounds as if you still have yet to de-personalize the event and learn from it> the accident, and the justice system
YOU ARE NOT PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY... The state does not have the burden of proof..."
Speaking of ignorance, let's see here, who should I believe. Mr./Mrs. Anonymous on the traffic blog who says the state is justified in assuming the infraction was committed without sufficient evidence? Or successful attorney on the radio that explicitly says that she gets most of her clients out of their tickets due to the state not having enough evidence to prove that they "committed the infraction"?
The mere fact that you lost control of your vehicle and struck a fixed object is proof enough that you were "traveling too fast for conditions"
Again, no, it's not. It's proof that something caused me to lose control. Was it speed? Was it a tire blowout? Was it a patch of extremely slick road? Was it evasive maneuvers? The state doesn't know. The fact that my vehicle collided with a stationary object tells you absolutely nothing about why it lost control in the first place. The state's requirement was written right on the ticket. It said "the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you committed this infraction." However, instead of proving anything, they simply assumed.
Sounds as if you still have yet to de-personalize the event and learn from it> the accident, and the justice system
Yes, I suppose next time I take that on-ramp I should follow the suggestion of the first officers that showed up on the scene. I'll drive the whole thing at 20mph and then merge into the left lane of traffic travelling three times that speed. That's a stellar plan. And as far as the justice system, I have learned quite a bit from this encounter. I have learned that if you want a judge to actually listen to your valid argument, you'd better bring a lawyer. If such a thing happens to me again (unlikely) you can bet I'll be calling up Ms. Mucklestone (or someone similar).
Dude, you seriously need to take a criminal justice class. This is covered in 101. There is no such thing as "guilt", as I said before it's a civil case not a criminal one. And as far as a lawyer getting you off, yes, they are professional advocates. And it always sounds better with someone else arguing your point. A lawyer will argue all the possible angles.
Speed is not the same thing as speeding, speed is movement. Hence, your vehicle was in motion and struck the stationary object, therefore the vehicle was moving too fast for you to have ceased the movement to avoid the collision. The condtions of why it was too fast or actual speed is not at issue. Prior case law has already determined all of that. A lawyer would be able to tell you what the actual legal definitions are, prior case law, the standards of proof, what the law is and means, and all of the legal subtilities. The law is not what you decide what the definition is, it's already in the statues and case law. A lawyer could make all the same arguments that you made but not come accross as whinning causing the judge to be sympathic and find in your favor. I'm just trying to educate you a little, I really like your blog and appreciate it. However, you are really very defensive and don't seem very open to constructive crictism. And yes if you haven't figured it out yet, I've written hundreds of tickets. I've yet to see someone win a contested case when they supoena me. Best bet is to argue against what is or isn't in the report/ticket notes. It's best to hedge against what isn't written in the ticket than to have me there to clarify if I left something out. Remember, tickets are very cut and dry, the officer only has to prove that the offense was committed. No need for Mens Rea, or how or why. The scene of an accident has all the necessary evidence for the officer to look at to make a determination, we're trained for that, remember. Here's a good/true example.... It's snow and ice, kid going 20 mph slides off road and goes through fence. Lack of traction caused accident, right? True, but he was going too fast for conditions (the snow and ice, no snow tires, lack of experience, etc) in order for him to have the traction in order to navigate the corner. Even though he was going less than the speed limit, it was too fast for his particular circumstances (ie condtions). But if you seriously think that a radio ad magically address all of the complex issues that I've objectively addressed than you go right ahead and take those freeway ramps as fast as you want. I'm not trying to sell you anything, but the radio ad is. Also the ticket was what $202, good luck finding any lawyers that charge less than that an hour.
Now please chill out and man up. Best advice if stopped, don't be defensive, be open to criticism, verbal warnings are only for those who listen and would learn. And yes I post Anonymous, who cares. Very little research will prove out everything I've said, it's been almost 17 years since I took Criminal Justice classes in college and fifteen since the po po academy. Peace man :)
But if you seriously think that a radio ad magically address all of the complex issues that I've objectively addressed than you go right ahead and take those freeway ramps as fast as you want. I'm not trying to sell you anything, but the radio ad is.
P.S. - I didn't hear this lawyer in a radio ad. She was being interviewed by the talk show host. And I witnessed myself first-hand in the courtroom that the only way to be taken seriously by the judge was to come in with a lawyer.
I made the exact same argument that the lawyer in the article makes, and she gets her clients off the hook of even more seemingly cut-and-dry tickets than mine.
The simple fact is that I know my car better than the officer that ticketed me, better than the judge that upheld the ticket, and most certainly better than you. I honestly couldn't care less whether you believe that I was going "too fast for conditions" or not. I know that I wasn't, and (to bring this comment back to the topic of the post) I know that if I ever get a similar ticket in the future (which is highly unlikely considering how safely I drive), I should get a lawyer. It's not about the money, it's the principle of the matter.
Actually you are all wrong I used to be a cop, the authorities that be always have the burden of proof when it comes to proving you committed said infraction, and yes you do get found guilty of said infraction should it be found that you committed the infraction, or should you agree to pay the fine, or should you request a mitigation hearing.
There is a reason why you may subpoena witnesses, even in such silly things as parking ticket hearings, including subpoenaing the officer who wrote you the ticket. It's because you are presumed innocent unless found guilty by default or admission or hearing. The jurisdiction who wrote the infraction has the burden of proof from the get go, including filling out tickets correctly.
Let's not take criminal justice classes and walk around acting like the end all authority on such matters. I am glad that you took the initiative to learn about our fine criminal justice system, but implore you to learn more before speaking as if you are an expert. I have seen these tickets thrown out right before my eyes, in fact I have seen tickets get thrown out in front of me as I was waiting to testify about a different ticket that I had written. Had I not shown up for court it would have been a default judgment in my favor since by law I have a right to confront my accusers, especially the officer who wrote that ticket.
I suggest using the proper wording for WA State traffic infractions. As stated previously, the standard traffic infractions (not the criminal ones) are civil.
Therefore, you are not guilty of a traffic infraction. Infractions are found "committed." The city/state has the burden to prove that an infraction was found committed.
The city/state must prove an infraction was found committed through the perponderence of the evidence standard.
You are correct to say an infraction is not found committed until it is proven so through a perponderence or through other means such as payment of the fine/ default or mitigation.
Your articles help me a lot in all mediums of subjects.
traffic lawyer in NJ
An immense moonlike of commendation, reserve it up. speeding ticket lawyer
Each time I used to always check blog posts within the first hours in the break of day, because I like to get information increasingly more. compare car insurance rates
These are truly amongst the wonderful informative blogs. auto insurance quote
I know this is quality based blogs along with other stuff. car insurance
Post a Comment