Guilty/not guilty what should I plea for not having my lights on with my wipers!

[deadghost]

Back in December of 2010 I was pulled over in city of industry for not having my lights on with my windshield wipers (mind you it just started to sprinkle in the mourning). This was in a modestly stock s13. Sheriff took about 5~10 minutes going over my paper work before letting me off with a $275~300.00 ticket. Strange thing was that most of the cars in the area had their lights off? I went off on every extension I could get away with. I need to make an appearance tomorrow for my plea. I want to plead not guilty and see if the cop shows up on the next court date.

Is there any way I can post the fine on that scheduled date? Should I just plead guilty and try to lower the fine?


Any advice would be much appreciated.
-khal

[Jay420sx]

Is tomorrow your first or second appearance? If its your first then plea Not Guilty. Then they will schedule a trial date. That time the cop and you must show up to tell both sides to the judge. If the cop doesnt show up its automatically dismissed. If the cop does show up you can either change your plea to No Contest and they will slap you with court costs OR stick to your not guilty plea and explain to the judge what happened. With your story it will most likely be thrown out. Depending on your judge, if hes cool or not.

Basically if you take the time to fight your ticket they will dismiss it if you have a good reason or they will lower the fine/courtcosts that will be cheaper than $300. Think about it, for every 1 person that fights there ticket theres at least 20 people that will just pay the ticket cost just to get it over with...

I fight every ticket I get. But I have a cool judge lol.

[Daniel.]

If you're guilty (which self admittedly you are) that's how you should plead.

If you're asking us for advice on how to circumvent the law (which you are) we can't help you.

It shouldn't make one ounce of difference what other people were doing at the time. If other people were speeding, does that mean you weren't as well?

[EhrikETFG]

speeding =/= not having your lights on when its sprinkling, get over yourself.

fight the system

[Jay420sx]

But maybe it was a dick cop that saw a 240 with an exhaust and thought hed take some anger out on him lol. Down here Ive ran into a few of those. And to get a ticket for not having you lights on with your wipers on when its sunny out?? Thats just stupid...

speeding =/= not having your lights on when its sprinkling, get over yourself.

fight the system

^EXACTLY

[Daniel.]

It's an example. Just because everyone else is "breaking the law" doesn't make it okay for you to. Are you special and above everyone else?

Possible police stereotyping aside, if you're sure you were not operating your vehicle in an unsafe fashion or were violating the law, feel free to fight it all you want. It's your right to do so in the American Judicial System. Just make sure you've got the evidence to back it up. Hoping that the cop doesn't show isn't a bulletproof defense.

speeding =/= not having your lights on when its sprinkling, get over yourself.

fight the system

YEAH FUCK DA POLICE, RIGHT? RIGHT? *facepalm*

[!Zar!]

Break the law, deal with the consequences.

[h2v7]

please not guilty till the end

once goes to trial tell them why lights were not on, u saw no rain and it was not dark

you win

your welcome

[Daniel.]

please not guilty till the end

once goes to trial tell them why lights were not on, u saw no rain and it was not dark

you win

your welcome

Except if the officer shows up and testifies otherwise. :ugh:

[heavenboundkevin]

YEAH YEAH! fuk da po lice!



















kidding.

[drift freaq]

Well honestly it was A: Sprinkling and B: you did not have your lights on. Now C: you had former knowledge of this very law yet you still violated it. Now what you choose to do is one thing. Trying to say others were not following the law so why should you get cited is pretty much a justification on your part.
It does not change the basic fact.

This is not a speed of traffic situation. So yes you should just pay the fine as you know you did get caught not following the law.
Now it is considered a moving violation which means you can take traffic school for it. Unless you have already used your traffic school out on something else.

I would suck it up and pay the fine and opt for traffic school to keep the point off your record. Thing is if you go to court fight it and lose you lose on the chance of doing traffic school and you pay the fine.

It sucks but you gotta pay to play. If am speeding and I get caught well my bad. I broke the law and I am going to own up .

[harrypotter]

If you did it man up and plead guilty and pay your fine. Don't waste taxpayers money/time.

[fliprayzin240sx]

Fuck, I hate CA...first off, when you had to make a stupid law that you have to have your headlights on when you're using your wiper is fucking retarded. If its just sprinkling and barely warrants the use of your wiper, why do you have to turn on your headlights? Better yet, when visibility isnt hampered, why have to have your headlights on? Lastly, $300 ticket for this shit? The state needs to just declare fucking bankruptcy because that's just straight out absurd. I can understand get nailed with fines that high for speeding, car pool, red light violations but for not having your headlights on when you don't need it is fucking retarded.

[raz0rbladez909]

Fuck, I hate CA...first off, when you had to make a stupid law that you have to have your headlights on when you're using your wiper is fucking retarded. If its just sprinkling and barely warrants the use of your wiper, why do you have to turn on your headlights? Better yet, when visibility isnt hampered, why have to have your headlights on? Lastly, $300 ticket for this shit? The state needs to just declare fucking bankruptcy because that's just straight out absurd. I can understand get nailed with fines that high for speeding, car pool, red light violations but for not having your headlights on when you don't need it is fucking retarded.

They have the same exact law in Virginia, and other states I'm sure. Personally if it even starts sprinkling I turn my lights on because people in California are idiots especially when conditions are less than perfect, if it was sprinkling enough to turn on your wipers whats so difficult about turning on the headlights, that way that idiot behind you can't say "I didn't see him his lights weren't on so I ran into him." Plus it's not like you have to go plug them in everytime it's a flick of the wrist. Pay the fine or fight it is up to you, what we say really shouldn't matter, especially if you know you were in the wrong.

[P-Funk alot]

you guys are all out of your damn minds. daniel you are way to full or yourself, so get off your high horse and snap back into reality. the law that states that your headlights have to be on during "foul" weather conditions is a catch all and is beaten 99% of the time. there is no limitations to the law and it goes by officer discretion. more than likely the officer will not even show up because of the nature of the violation. you can receive this same ticket for driving around before 7am with your lights off due to poor lighting conditions. how do i know all this because i help write them. and from a legal stand point you are supposed to fight every situation you receive. there is a max and min fine that has been regulated by the state for a reason people. wake the fuck up.

[kandyflip445]

$300 dollars seems extremely steep. But if you plead Not Guilty and then tell your story like you did here you will lose. Unless the judge just feels sorry for you.

[dato]

Look. F$&$ what everyone else says. Plea not guilty then if cop shows up you tell the judge you had your lights on. "your honor I'm 110% sure I had my lights on, other cars in the area had their lights off, the officer made an error. I should not be liable to pay for this error, as I mentioned earlier I DID Have my lights on.". The thing with your case is that it falls into the he said she said senerio. So it's subjective, the courts give u the benefit of the doubt. You could also questions his vision, other cars in the area. Just make sure u are very confident with you having the lights on. Don't mention anything that u "think" or he pulled u over because u drive a 240... Many wil disagree but I sure have done this with my stopping tickets. Remember the law is open to interpretation

[BustedS13]

where do you live? tickets don't work the same nationwide. for instance, i take every moving violation i get to a lawyer, who waves a wand for $50 and turns them into random non-moving violations. usually illegal parking or some other nonsense. i have no idea how it works but it's common practice here, and i have no points on my license. YMMV.

[raz0rbladez909]

Look. F$&$ what everyone else says. Plea not guilty then if cop shows up you tell the judge you had your lights on. "your honor I'm 110% sure I had my lights on, other cars in the area had their lights off, the officer made an error. I should not be liable to pay for this error, as I mentioned earlier I DID Have my lights on.". The thing with your case is that it falls into the he said she said senerio. So it's subjective, the courts give u the benefit of the doubt. You could also questions his vision, other cars in the area. Just make sure u are very confident with you having the lights on. Don't mention anything that u "think" or he pulled u over because u drive a 240... Many wil disagree but I sure have done this with my stopping tickets. Remember the law is open to interpretation

Usually when cops pull someone over they USUALLY have a dash mounted camera on, if he just happens to bring this proof to court it is no longer he says/she says, especially since you've made a thread admitting guilt, and trying to find a way out of it. I dunno I've seen plenty of cops find people on forums trying to make themselves seem tough about their cop experience, only to get owned in the end.
Jussayin:keke:

[Daniel.]

you guys are all out of your damn minds. daniel you are way to full or yourself, so get off your high horse and snap back into reality. the law that states that your headlights have to be on during "foul" weather conditions is a catch all and is beaten 99% of the time. there is no limitations to the law and it goes by officer discretion. more than likely the officer will not even show up because of the nature of the violation. you can receive this same ticket for driving around before 7am with your lights off due to poor lighting conditions. how do i know all this because i help write them. and from a legal stand point you are supposed to fight every situation you receive. there is a max and min fine that has been regulated by the state for a reason people. wake the fuck up.

All anecdotal. Where are your facts?

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV so you should listen to my medical advice bro. :wan:
When I'm not acting, I work as a state legal assistant so you should listen to me about when I talk about moving violations.

[Sr20Bluebird]

i know that cops keep us safe and all but COME ON!!! find something better to do with your time.

[codyace]

Plead guilty, talk to the cop, see if it can be reduced. Show up like a man, and get treated as one. Show up as a sneak and I hope the slam the maximum on ya.

i know that cops keep us safe and all but COME ON!!! find something better to do with your time.

I fucking hate this argument more than anything else; in fact it's one of the main things that is wrong with this country...it's stupidity and lack of accountability all rolled into one. Breaking the law, is breaking the law, is breaking the law. To a pot head, speeders are dangerous....to a speeder, pot heads are dangerous...etc etc etc. Who's to say that Johnny5 selling crazy is any less dangerous then Johnny6 driving without his lights on? Both can lead to the same result right? (death)


nd from a legal stand point you are supposed to fight every situation you receive. there is a max and min fine that has been regulated by the state for a reason people. wake the fuck up.

Yes, fighting law on technicality or with deceit. This goes along with above. Amazing how wise/smart/keen people are to working around the law, instead of abiding by it. If people put half that effort into better things, we'd all be better off.

[jamg]

so this is what happens in cali?

what a joke.

you paying over $300 because you still had full judgement of your actions, in light conditions.

kind of makes he happy to live in the south a bit.

"so what tickets did you write today"

"caught a kid who didn't have his headlights and wipers on in that light rain this morning"

stupid laws.

all you idiots defending this, have fun living your sheep life.

[Daniel.]

so this is what happens in cali?

what a joke.

you paying over $300 because you still had full judgement of your actions, in light conditions.

kind of makes he happy to live in the south a bit.

"so what tickets did you write today"

"caught a kid who didn't have his headlights and wipers on in that light rain this morning"

stupid laws.

all you idiots defending this, have fun living your sheep life.

1) my lights are almost always on in gloomy weather, for safety. So I probably wouldn't get popped for this in the first place.

2) I'm passionate and fight for the things that really matter to me, and moving violations like these aren't one of them. Don't mistake knowing/obeying the law, and acting like man for mindless sheep mentality.

[BustedS13]

all you idiots defending this, have fun living your sheep life.

i actually think it's a pretty good law. i used to drive in the rain during the day with my lights off, then i almost got hit a couple times. it's not worth being the cool guy with his lights off. i still wear sunglasses when it rains though because i'm cool as fuck

[HyperTek]

this may be of interest to you
RX7Club.com (http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=970411)

Speeding and doing traffic violations is one thing, but something as petty as not having your lights on is just stupid imo.. If your rolling around in a pop up s13, than i can imagine it probably looks more noticeable than other fixed headlight cars.

[deadghost]

Look. F$&$ what everyone else says. Plea not guilty then if cop shows up you tell the judge you had your lights on. "your honor I'm 110% sure I had my lights on, other cars in the area had their lights off, the officer made an error. I should not be liable to pay for this error, as I mentioned earlier I DID Have my lights on.". The thing with your case is that it falls into the he said she said senerio. So it's subjective, the courts give u the benefit of the doubt. You could also questions his vision, other cars in the area. Just make sure u are very confident with you having the lights on. Don't mention anything that u "think" or he pulled u over because u drive a 240... Many wil disagree but I sure have done this with my stopping tickets. Remember the law is open to interpretation

Sounds like a great idea, but my biggest concern is I have to post the fine amount on my first appearance (upon pleading not guilty), I was advised to plead with a OR (if the judge allows it under my financial background), from which I understand is a promise to return on the next court date with the fine amount (if I am found guilty).

you guys are all out of your damn minds. daniel you are way to full or yourself, so get off your high horse and snap back into reality. the law that states that your headlights have to be on during "foul" weather conditions is a catch all and is beaten 99% of the time. there is no limitations to the law and it goes by officer discretion. more than likely the officer will not even show up because of the nature of the violation. you can receive this same ticket for driving around before 7am with your lights off due to poor lighting conditions. how do i know all this because i help write them. and from a legal stand point you are supposed to fight every situation you receive. there is a max and min fine that has been regulated by the state for a reason people. wake the fuck up.

"foul" weather conditions is a catch", I might just stick by that and just say that it stopped sprinkling upon my operation of use, hence I was using my wipers to remove the water off my windshield. I don't know how that sounds?

Is tomorrow your first or second appearance? If its your first then plea Not Guilty. Then they will schedule a trial date. That time the cop and you must show up to tell both sides to the judge. If the cop doesnt show up its automatically dismissed. If the cop does show up you can either change your plea to No Contest and they will slap you with court costs OR stick to your not guilty plea and explain to the judge what happened. With your story it will most likely be thrown out. Depending on your judge, if hes cool or not.

Basically if you take the time to fight your ticket they will dismiss it if you have a good reason or they will lower the fine/courtcosts that will be cheaper than $300. Think about it, for every 1 person that fights there ticket theres at least 20 people that will just pay the ticket cost just to get it over with...

I fight every ticket I get. But I have a cool judge lol.

Tomorrow is my first appearance, no contest seems like probable option if he does show up! I always fess up and pay off my tickets, but this just did not seem right, it was a little too odd under the circumstances that the weather was clear, even though it had on/off drizzle/sprinkles.

[deadghost]

this may be of interest to you
RX7Club.com (http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=970411)

Speeding and doing traffic violations is one thing, but something as petty as not having your lights on is just stupid imo.. If your rolling around in a pop up s13, than i can imagine it probably looks more noticeable than other fixed headlight cars.


Thanks for the help Hypertek, but I cant read the thread because I am not up to par on my thread count:o. Any chance you can give me the gist of the thread?

I appreciate everyone's (negative and positive) input, I'm simply asking for everyone's advice/experience/viewpoint and understand that you guys are all helping me out in a tremendous way.

[One_love_silvia]

didnt read anything really but the title and why u got a ticket.

but all i know is, it pisses me the fuck off when people dont have their lights on when the sun starts to go down, or even when theres a little bit of rain. or even when its just really cloudy with no sunshine.

he probably woulda given u a ticket even if ur wipers were off, because ur lights were off.

it makes it hard to see you. turn your damn lights on.

[articdragon192]

I hate it when people don't have their lights on, even in cloudy weather when it isn't even sprinkling. It's common sense, lesser than ideal light conditions, turn on your damn lights. I'm glad that law exists.

[jamg]

OP what you should have done was taken a picture of your surroundings after getting the ticket. show that to the judge to prove that conditions didn't warrant the ticket.
i actually think it's a pretty good law. i used to drive in the rain during the day with my lights off, then i almost got hit a couple times. it's not worth being the cool guy with his lights off. i still wear sunglasses when it rains though because i'm cool as fuck

It is against the law in GA to have a donkey in your bath tub.

yeah, i think that law is great too.

well of course you turn your lights on, but if it's just a small sprinkle of rain no different that what i use on my lawn........ it's dumb to ticket that.

and 300~ for that too. that's a strong police state.

and to add his WIPERS. cmon now. how dumb is that?
I hate it when people don't have their lights on, even in cloudy weather when it isn't even sprinkling. It's common sense, lesser than ideal light conditions, turn on your damn lights. I'm glad that law exists.

correlation=/=causation

[dato]

Usually when cops pull someone over they USUALLY have a dash mounted camera on, if he just happens to bring this proof to court it is no longer he says/she says, especially since you've made a thread admitting guilt, and trying to find a way out of it. I dunno I've seen plenty of cops find people on forums trying to make themselves seem tough about their cop experience, only to get owned in the end.
Jussayin:keke:

yeah true, but i can say with 99% confidence that the cop will not show up with the actual recording for such a petty thing. i once got a ticket with laser. with laser if they point that thing at u, its u! i fought it anyways, in the end i did not speak, and i won since the officer failed to fill out additonal paper work. this is why the law sometimes can be used to your advantage. so, i fight all my tickets, right or wrong. lawyers will fight for u too, regardless if guilty or not (well some)

Yes, fighting law on technicality or with deceit. This goes along with above. Amazing how wise/smart/keen people are to working around the law, instead of abiding by it. If people put half that effort into better things, we'd all be better off.

YES!!!!

[One_love_silvia]

I hate it when people don't have their lights on, even in cloudy weather when it isn't even sprinkling. It's common sense, lesser than ideal light conditions, turn on your damn lights. I'm glad that law exists.

exactly...

[BustedS13]

and 300~ for that too. that's a strong police state.

correlation=/=causation

enforcing traffic laws != "police state"

[Daniel.]

OP what you should have done was taken a picture of your surroundings after getting the ticket. show that to the judge to prove that conditions didn't warrant the ticket.


It is against the law in GA to have a donkey in your bath tub.

yeah, i think that law is great too.

well of course you turn your lights on, but if it's just a small sprinkle of rain no different that what i use on my lawn........ it's dumb to ticket that.

and 300~ for that too. that's a strong police state.

and to add his WIPERS. cmon now. how dumb is that?


correlation=/=causation

The Donkey law is a poor example and is an outlier.

The headlights law is a perfect example of common sense intersecting with traffic laws. You don't think it's safer for everyone if all cars had their lights on situations with poor visibility? This includes dark parking garages with tight turns, rainy situations, night, fog, narrow two lane roads, etc etc?

The 300 dollar fine has nothing to do with the government imposing their will on the citizenry and has EVERYTHING to do with how broke California is.

[dato]

The Donkey law is a poor example and is an outlier.

The headlights law is a perfect example of common sense intersecting with traffic laws. You don't think it's safer for everyone if all cars had their lights on situations with poor visibility? This includes dark parking garages with tight turns, rainy situations, night, fog, narrow two lane roads, etc etc?

The 300 dollar fine has nothing to do with the government imposing their will on the citizenry and has EVERYTHING to do with how broke California is.

Yet u can argue, common sense Has a different definition from person to person. Who dictates if it was poor visibility? Officer has a different interpretation than the person getting ticket. I could easy say it was perfectly safe for me to continue with my lights on or off, and say it was safe to drive, while other will say it was not? How can u impose reasoning in this case? My vision is better than yours? Or it was not dark enough and the list goes on, to what u can say

[Daniel.]

I didn't say the law was a direct interpretation of common sense*, just that it intersects with common sense. In fact, the way the law is written, it doesn't leave much to the discretion of the officer at all. It's pretty easy to see that the law exists solely as a revenue generator for those caught unawares.

It's pretty simple folks, turning on your headlights is easy as fuck. In most cars it takes less than a second. There's no excuse not to err on the side of caution, especially when it's such an easy excuse for officers to cite you, and the cost/benefit ratio is so high.

*The whole common sense argument is a can of worms. We can all agree that it varies widely from person to person, and that not everyone has it at all. This isn't the thread for that discussion.

[theboy]

if your fighting it, make sure you have plenty of evidence on your side to fight it. Weather reports from the day can be back tracked up to 6 years so you should have that info on hand (great evidence for a win). Also if you believe the cop wont show then your a fool. They are paid to sit and patrol (gets boring after a while) so if they have a chance to do something else you better believe they will. Even though it was almost a year ago that the officer wrote the sitation, i guarrantee he still has footage from his dash (its filed until the case is closed). If you were smart, you would go in early to the hearing and try to find and attorney to talk to. Its free when they are outside the court room and you havent hired them. See what he/she has to say about it.

Just remember one thing if you try to fight it. If that cop has to deal with you again hes probably going to keep an eye on you while your driving and any excuse to pull you over he gets, he will take. And i can guarrantee youll never get a warning. On top of that, the judge doesnt care what everyone else was doing. Your at fault not the other drivers. And he will use that against your maturity, and how liable your story really is. Cops are also paid to be honest (which the judge assumes) so they usually are believed over you, and the judge takes their side 99% of the time.

So just pay up and take traffic school for the couple hour course. Yes it sucks major ass, and the law is total bs. But it beats being a target for the next 10 years and get your fine doubled for court costs and everything else they can think of.

[jamg]

it's also illegal in GA to drive a slammed car. lowering it over ___ inches.

but yet there are no complaints to it. no one has ever made a thread on the big local car forums complaining about it.

it's the principal of liberty. doing as one wishes, without making another worse off.

i recall of story of someone getting a ticket for decals over the window. I was against it, as it was the off officer not driving the car, so he was in no position to judge that the decals placed at the corners of the windows was obstructing his vision.

Yet u can argue, common sense Has a different definition from person to person. Who dictates if it was poor visibility? Officer has a different interpretation than the person getting ticket. I could easy say it was perfectly safe for me to continue with my lights on or off, and say it was safe to drive, while other will say it was not? How can u impose reasoning in this case? My vision is better than yours? Or it was not dark enough and the list goes on, to what u can say

that's pretty much my point. the lack of liberty to do as one wishes, without making another worse off.

soon enough, we will have cops ticketing us for having the window down as it's raining.

enforcing traffic laws != "police state"

i'm all for enforcing traffic laws.

just not over dumb shit like this.

[P-Funk alot]

daniel your a joke. any judge will tell you ( i have ran your situation buy a judge ) that to not fight any infraction that you receive is the worst possible thing you can do. first off this "law" was created to help with the ca deficit. its a joke and at officer discretion. you can get a ticket for driving with your fog light on when its not foggy, did you know that mr daniel. but i bet you do it. you can get a ticket for walking down the street singing, and it would be written up as disturbing the peace. is a judge gonna fine you, fuck no, but you can still get it. laws work both ways and can be very tricky. what one officer sees as foul weather another will see as good driving conditions. officer discretion is bullshit and so are the cops that write those petty ass tickets. further more what you feel you need caution for not everyone feels the same way. i bet you pee sitting down so you dont miss right. and you are by far the worst legal assistant ever if you even try to tell someone not to fight a case. the system is meant to be challenged and was designed the way it is for that purpose. and speaking of caution the car in your sig is a lil to low and there for could receive a citation for improper lighting height but you do it right. so shut the fuck up and be real daniel. no one is saying break the law and op feels he didnt do anything wrong. so yes PLEA NOT GUILTY... END OF STORY

[Daniel.]

it's also illegal in GA to drive a slammed car. lowering it over ___ inches.

but yet there are no complaints to it. no one has ever made a thread on the big local car forums complaining about it.

it's the principal of liberty. doing as one wishes, without making another worse off.

i recall of story of someone getting a ticket for decals over the window. I was against it, as it was the off officer not driving the car, so he was in no position to judge that the decals placed at the corners of the windows was obstructing his vision.



that's pretty much my point. the lack of liberty to do as one wishes, without making another worse off.


soon enough, we will have cops ticketing us for having the window down as it's raining.



i'm all for enforcing traffic laws.

just not over dumb shit like this.

The problem is that not having your lights on in situations with poor visibility (as I have mentioned at least twice now) is exactly a situation where you could harm others. I can't tell you how many times I've almost turned the corner in my underground parking garage only to almost plow into a speeding car with no lights on. It's dark as fuck down there, and driving without your lights on is inviting someone to crash into you.

Otherwise, I agree with you. I won't argue with people if they all want to join a suicide club and jump off a bridge.

daniel your a joke. any judge will tell you ( i have ran your situation buy a judge ) that to not fight any infraction that you receive is the worst possible thing you can do. first off this "law" was created to help with the ca deficit. its a joke and at officer discretion. you can get a ticket for driving with your fog light on when its not foggy, did you know that mr daniel. but i bet you do it. you can get a ticket for walking down the street singing, and it would be written up as disturbing the peace. is a judge gonna fine you, fuck no, but you can still get it. laws work both ways and can be very tricky. what one officer sees as foul weather another will see as good driving conditions. officer discretion is bullshit and so are the cops that write those petty ass tickets. further more what you feel you need caution for not everyone feels the same way. i bet you pee sitting down so you dont miss right. and you are by far the worst legal assistant ever if you even try to tell someone not to fight a case. the system is meant to be challenged and was designed the way it is for that purpose. and speaking of caution the car in your sig is a lil to low and there for could receive a citation for improper lighting height but you do it right. so shut the fuck up and be real daniel. no one is saying break the law and op feels he didnt do anything wrong. so yes PLEA NOT GUILTY... END OF STORY

Wat?

I'm sorry tl;dr. Needs better formatting, will not repeat. Thank you come again.

[VROOOM]

daniel your a joke. any judge will tell you ( i have ran your situation buy a judge ) that to not fight any infraction that you receive is the worst possible thing you can do. first off this "law" was created to help with the ca deficit. its a joke and at officer discretion. you can get a ticket for driving with your fog light on when its not foggy, did you know that mr daniel. but i bet you do it. you can get a ticket for walking down the street singing, and it would be written up as disturbing the peace. is a judge gonna fine you, fuck no, but you can still get it. laws work both ways and can be very tricky. what one officer sees as foul weather another will see as good driving conditions. officer discretion is bullshit and so are the cops that write those petty ass tickets. further more what you feel you need caution for not everyone feels the same way. i bet you pee sitting down so you dont miss right. and you are by far the worst legal assistant ever if you even try to tell someone not to fight a case. the system is meant to be challenged and was designed the way it is for that purpose. and speaking of caution the car in your sig is a lil to low and there for could receive a citation for improper lighting height but you do it right. so shut the fuck up and be real daniel. no one is saying break the law and op feels he didnt do anything wrong. so yes PLEA NOT GUILTY... END OF STORY

buying a judge is illegal!!

[!Zar!]

Driving is a privileged, not a right.

[Daniel.]

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/10720010.jpg

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/10720030.jpg

[airsoft]

1st extend
2nd Trial by written declaration
3rd Request new trial before judge (Trial de Novo) Must be within 20 days of loss by written declaration

4th good luck.

Tip: You have the burden of proof that there is REASONABLE DOUBT to your citation.

I have won:

1 speeding via written declaration 10fwy East bound @ Baldwin Exit
1 speeding 90 in 70 in front of a judge @ Kern County

For those that say if you break the law pay up... Well I'm sure all cops are 100% fair themselves and will own up to tickets they have written for Bullshit reasons... If you feel you did not break any law then fight it.

I was never speeding... In my honest opinion... and according to the outcomes of my trials, never happened...

**In your case you would have to prove either your lights were on, OR something in the lines of it being safe, conditions were well lit, what actual law states for headlight use etc etc, time of day, traffic heavy or not, weather reports etc.

You can not use the fact others around you didn't have them on.

I had a CHP officer once ask me, if I had gone fishing, and if I was able to catch every single fucking fish...

[DoobieS13]

if its day light out and its raining....even if its pretty cloudy out i dont turn on my headlights. now if its storming out or is getting close to being dark and its raning then i turn on my headlights. i've never heard of anyone being pulled over for this so i find it kinda funny..that 300 ticket is some bullshit lol.

i have no problem driving in the rain with my lights off, nor have i ever got hit or ever hit anyone. pay more attention when you drive.

[!Zar!]

if its day light out and its raining....even if its pretty cloudy out i dont turn on my headlights. now if its storming out or is getting close to being dark and its raning then i turn on my headlights. i've never heard of anyone being pulled over for this so i find it kinda funny..that 300 ticket is some bullshit lol.

i have no problem driving in the rain with my lights off, nor have i ever got hit or ever hit anyone. pay more attention when you drive.

See and be SEEN.

I know they mention that in the drivers rule book.

[VROOOM]

See and be SEEN.

I know they mention that in the drivers rule book.

yup, thats why motorcycle riders in alot of states have to have thier headlights on.

[drift freaq]

Word of forwarning to the OP. Unless you are in a rural county in California the cop will most likely show up. They get paid time and a half for court appearances.
If that cop shows up and you do not have any kind provable argument the judge will take your word over his.

Oh and I should add I have no faith in taking a traffic ticket to court in major metropolitan areas of California.
Not only do the cops show up but they sometimes manage to change their stories but still stick to the basic violation. Had that happen to me, I even questioned his ability to remember since he had changed his story from what he stated to me at the scene.

Judge did not care, even went as far as to say that there were more important cases to be Judged and that cases like this were clogging up the system.

She then added that she felt cops were more credible witnesses. Yup I wound up losing the case, paid the fine got a point on the record.
f
P.S. the only reason I did take it to court was because I did not make the supposed violation. Had I honestly made it? I would have just bit the bullet and paid the fine and gone to traffic school.

Did it destroy my faith in using the court system for traffic tickets in major cities and metro areas? Yes it did.

Of course this country is way to litigious to begin with. To many people go to court for to many things as it is.

Again I said it earlier I will state it again. If you knowingly made the violation, man up and pay for it. Consider it a lesson learned.

[Banana_Cute]

If he fights it and the cop does show up. Cop doesnt have to have any kinds of videos. Unless the contesting party has some legit proof, if it comes to a he said/she said, the judge will most likely follow the citing officer, why? because he does that for a living.

You could've just ask to lower your fine from the get-go. Usually when you contest a ticket they're not too nice if you are find guilty. From my experience that is, i didnt get a payment option, didnt get my fine lowered or have a chance to go to traffic school. But thats a moving violation. I dont know what they classify your situation.

What you COULDVE done is not EXACTLY LIE, but tell em. you have a w/e year old car and you've been having problem with the wiring before and you were plannin on taking care of it but it just so happened that it rained.

You cant tell the judge "but everyone else has their lights off driving with wipers on" because the judge or the officer could easily tell you what they've told me before and what i've read in here before...."have you gone fishing? Have you caught them all"..simple explanation. Good luck though.

[FaLKoN240]

What have you all learned? Turn on your windshield wipers? Turn on your headlights.

That shit is free.

If you have two headlights out, GET THE FUCK OFF THE ROAD AND TAKE THE BUS.

[!Zar!]

What you COULDVE done is not EXACTLY LIE, but tell em. you have a w/e year old car and you've been having problem with the wiring before and you were plannin on taking care of it but it just so happened that it rained.

So you want him to state that his car doesn't operate properly and isn't fit for driving on the road?

YOU WIN!

[Banana_Cute]

So you want him to state that his car doesn't operate properly and isn't fit for driving on the road?

YOU WIN!

you mean your car never had any problem on you WHILE your on the road??

[Walperstyle]

wierd law. Here in Canada you have to have a car with daytime running lights. Its impossible to have no lights on for any car over 1991 approx.

[!Zar!]

you mean your car never had any problem on you WHILE your on the road??

My cars aren't buckets, and if there were a problem it would have been fixed.

Regardless, there was nothing wrong with the OP's car.

I don't believe that story and neither will the judge.

[anti tyler]

It’s a weird law for sure, but every state has those. fact is that the police officer (whether or not he was just being a douche at the time) wrote you a ticket for it. I mean in FL I’ve never got any sort of ticket for anything other than speeding. Warned for everything from no exhaust, loud stereo, no front bumper to having a headlight out. I don’t really turn my head lights on until it’s dusk. But that’s just me, everyone has their own opinions on the case. I personally think it’s pitiful the way they go about things like that. BUT! as I always say, if you don’t like the laws, don’t live in the state, better yet, move the fuck out of the country if you think the way things work are wack. :mepoke:


P.S. I personally think there is a big difference in peoples' perception on what "poor visibility" is. That's why It's all just my opinion, Do what you feel is safe, but with common sense in hand. ( I know most people leave that at the door when they leave to get in their car anyway )

[!Zar!]

P.S. I personally think there is a big difference in peoples' perception on what "poor visibility" is.

And that is why there are laws in place to control that.

As I said prior, see and be seen.

[Bullet01]

Shit, what a heavy fine for something so dopey.

OP, Just plea not guilty and see if you can confirm some facts with the cop (dash video proof) before the judge calls you into court. Most times if your reasonable and the cop is not a dick cheese, you can work out a lil deal with the cop before the judge shows up. If not, oh well and just pay the fine. Good luck.

[Daniel.]

Most times if your reasonable and the cop is not a dick cheese, you can work out a lil deal with the cop before the judge shows up. If not, oh well and just pay the fine. Good luck.

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/10782149.jpg

[Bullet01]

Yep. Welcome to America boyscout.

[Daniel.]

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/10782947.jpg

[FunnyVictor86]

Judge did not care, even went as far as to say that there were more important cases to be Judged and that cases like this were clogging up the system.

She then added that she felt cops were more credible witnesses. Yup I wound up losing the case, paid the fine got a point on the record.
f




I found your problem ...

[Prime]

I take every single ticket to court if it will cost more than the time spent fighting it.

Hypothetical Example: You make 10 bucks an hour before taxes. Ticket is 20 bucks. Estimated time for court is 3 hours. Pay it, you're ahead ten bucks. Something like this?

I'd go in, plead NG. Appear before judge, cite the law in it's entirety and state: "I believe that I was driving in a safe and legal fashion while taking the conditions of the road into account. I believe that the officer was excessive in his interpretation of "foul" weather, as the weather report for the day indicated there was (whatever it was in inches, assuming very little) during the morning in question. For these reasons I feel I should be found Not Guilty of the cited offense." Sure, the Judge will probably still take the side of the cop. You didn't lie, you stated a belief in your own innocence, no possible issues there. At the very least you should be able to get the fine reduced if you ask the Judge afterwards. At the worst, you're stuck paying the full ticket and you lost some time at work. So, it's a bit of a gamble unless you can finagle it on a day off of some kind.

[!Zar!]

The OP will have to go to court twice.

The first judge will only ask if you are guilty, or non guilty.

If he plees non guilty, then he will have to go to court again, then he will be able to state his case.

[deadghost]

The OP will have to go to court twice.

The first judge will only ask if you are guilty, or non guilty.

If he plees non guilty, then he will have to go to court again, then he will be able to state his case.

Well the verdict is in! I saw the bastard of pig at the court room already testifying against other minor cases (dark tail lights, using a radar gun on a downhill street, etc). And to make things even worst, the judge and the cop seemed to be on the same line, like they were fond of each other...nice, right! Being prudent on what you guys have advised me on, I pleaded guilty on the request that my ticket gets lowered, and that I get a 4~5 month extension on paying the ticket at the very least. Judge denies it:bite:! I bickered with the judge for a good minute or two on the grounds that it is a over the top ticket, and that I should at very least be on the mercy of the court if I were to plead guilty....he looks at me for a good couple seconds and tells me that he made a error on not reducing the fine, and lowered it to $160.00! He did not say anything about the extension? Well by the time he excuses me he hands me my paper work with a 5~6 month extension! Fine came out to $190.00 with the extension, and I do not have to do traffic school. So I guess it worked out...favorably. Appreciate the help guys!

[Bullet01]

Congrats! Watch yourself next time since its seems you have a twisted system over there with over the top fines. I wonder what speeding tickets are....$900? :bite:

[fyneyoungstunna]

Glad im in Colorado where crazy traffic laws like this are nill....