Speeding ticket by pacing
 

Hey guys, not sure if this is off topic. but since i recently moved here from NY, i've never heard a pace speeding ticket(but then again, i've only gotten 1 speeding ticket since i started driving back in 08 and that was almost 6 years ago).

I'm not going to state if I was speeding or not(it was a bit ridiculous is all i'm going to say.) But from some research i've been doing online, some say i have a good chance of fighting this off because the police officer on the motorbike used pacing as a gauge for speed. Just want to get some advice and hear some different opinions. First time ever being pulled over in WA.

Thanks!

P.S. this happened on the freeway just before broadway in everett. I was just going for a car wash. =.=

I'm not entirely sure how a pacing ticket works. But from what I guess is a cop spotted you then followed you and matched your speed? Only thing I can think of to prove him wrong was saying your passing other cars as he was pacing.

I currently waiting on my court date for same type of thing. Ticket says pace then radar in another spot. Interested to hear input on this as well.

Im in ny though

Before the advent of radar being used by police, pacing was only method they used for speeding. Unless you have some very compelling evidence to dispute the cop it will be your word against his/hers. I think you know how that's going to play out in front of a judge.

this is one thing i was reading about that i might use in my defense before we even get to the speed. http://pacespeedingtickets.com/ there are a few other forums i seen used this exact defense.

The burden of proof for traffic tickets is very low. It really depends on the speed one was driving. If it was excessive (over 20 MPH over limit), then it isn't hard for the officer to prove more likely than not that one was speeding. So in other words, you may be screwed.

oh it was not even close to over 20MPH over the limit. like i said it was ridiculous

Get a traffic lawyer he can get you off just paying his fee. This will not show on your record and your insurance will not go up. It will save u money in the long run...

how much do those usually go for?

https://www.mucklestone.com/ she came highly recommended to me by a lot of people at microsoft. i've used her twice and she's gotten both tickets thrown out.

if it's your 1st one just defer it

as in just pay it?

you need to make sure the court house in question even offers defferal. I found out the hard way several years ago that Arlington with some crusty old fucker does not. Watched him shut down 3 people who asked for it. I then tried to get the fine reduced by admitting to doing 78, which was true, i had my cruise on, was passed by a black dodge nitro, cop tags nitro, pulls me over and gave me a ticket for 84. Judge told me he'd mail me his decision in 2 weeks. he stuck me with a ticket for doing 84.

so between the time spent in the courthouse, driving to the courthouse and the fine, i'd have paid less to pay a traffic attorney.

edit: just looked it up, arlington does offer defferals, fucking asshole judge.

sell everything for cash and move out of the country.


but, were you speeding? If so, easier to just pay the fine and get on with it! And make sure you aren't followed lol

If you have received a traffic infraction, you may be eligible for a deferral. By successfully completing a deferral, the Court will not report your ticket to the Department of Licensing.

You may defer only one moving and one non-moving infraction every seven years.
The length of the deferral is one year.
To complete your deferral, you must pay an administrative fee and not commit a new traffic
violation for one year.
If you commit a new traffic infraction during your deferral or fail to pay the administrative
fee, the Court will report your deferred ticket as a conviction to Department of Licensing.

source: http://www.douglascountywa.net/depar...ferral_faq.asp

this will differ between counties but the general idea is the same.

If you truly believe you were not speeding (i.e., I was doing the speed limit" -- NOT "well, I was going as fast as everyone else... blah, blah, blah...") then fight the ticket. Do what it takes to notify the court that you wish to contest the ticket. They will contact you with a court date. I would suggest immediately asking for an alternative date - b/c the court picks a date that jives with the officer's schedule so s/he can make the court appearance. Getting an alternative date (b/c, "I'll be out of town" etc.) increases the chance that the LEO will not show up.... and bing! Case Dismissed. However, if the LEO does show up... simply stand by the statement, "I was not speeding." Make the officer PROVE that you were. You have the right to ask questions like, "When was the last time your speedometer was calibrated?" (Which might cast doubt on accuracy of the "pace.")

Whatever you do, do not say words to the effect of, "Well, I might have been 5 over.. but every other car was doing so too....." You have just admitted you were speeding. Period. You're either Guilty or Not Guilty. "Extenuating Circumstances" rarely work... and only when they are bona fide winners that will turn a judge's or commissioner's mind around enough to cut you a break.... "I was bleeding and trying to get to a hospital..."

All this said... if you don't have the stomach to go to battle with the LEO... or go the Deferral Route... just "do the time" and chalk it up to "This makes up for all the other times I KNEW I was speeding and didn't get caught..."

Good luck!

I'd go with this guy, he has gotten me out of a few speeding tickets. He typically charges 250-300. A lot of the car forums recommend this guy. Say you were referred by a car forum and ask for a discount.

http://www.obrienlawfirm.net/attorne.../fred-hopkins/

when i was in Arlington the officer was not there, and the judge said they're not required to waste their time to come because he has all the proof he needs on the ticket.

i srs hate that judge.

I would definitely try to push the court date back if you try to fight it, try to make it inconvenient for the officer to show up. If the officer does not show, you can ask the judge to dismiss the case. Since the officer is the only witness to the violation they can't prove behind responsible doubt that you committed a violation also you have a right to face your accuser to cross-examine them.

Also pacing has guidelines that have to be followed they have to do it for a certain distance or time and they must be a reasonable distance from you in order to pace you with a clear line of sight. If he is to far back you can claim he was playing catch up and didn't pace you properly.

The officer is automatically going to have more creditability than you when talking to the judge, so if it ends up being your word vs his he will most likely win. You can try to build some creditability when the cop says he was traveling about 60 to 65 mph don't give a range like him. Say your exact speed, try to start to cast a some shadow of doubt about the officer not being as precise about his answers.

The law says you have the right to face your accuser and ask pertinent questions! If the LEO doesn't show up.. that's not your problem.. that's the court's problem. For the judge to say that... s/he is making a mistake, or there was something VERY unique about the citation. I'll go out on a limb and say that HAD you pushed the point, s/he would have had to schedule a follow-up court date so the LEO could appear... or dismiss the ticket outright. If you were convicted w/o the opportunity to face the LEO...I guess we need a bit more insight on what the citation was for... .maybe there are some level of infractions/citations that don't require LEO presence (kind of like "Photo Radar").

I'm aware of this, and my ticket was nothing special, 84 in a 70 caught by laser. No mention of how much traffic there was, where i was in the pack. when i pressed the judge about it he lifted the ticket pointed to the LEO signature and statement on the ticket and said this was all the evidence he needed. The tone in his voice made it very clear he wasn't going to budge and I wasn't feeling up to adding contempt of court charge on my day so i accepted the ticket and learned to just lawyer up from now on.

I would go with the Lawyer route - peace.

Discretion was the better part of valor on your part... good read on the judge. In a perfect world, the right to question the officer is a right... and the judge (or commissioner) needs to allow that right to be exercised regardless of whether the final arbitrator of the decision has already made his/her mind up about guilt or innocence. It's a game... you might have pressed the point... a 2nd court date may have been set... the LEO might have showed up... and you may have been able to prove "reasonable doubt" and STILL ended up losing (guilty) just b/c the judge wanted to "make a point." Just bugs me when people in that role take advantage of the fact that "the people" don't know (or understand) their rights... As you point out... if you had a lawyer at your side... the judge probably would have acted differently.

The state doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for traffic infractions, the burden of proof is only "by a preponderance of the evidence" meaning that if an officer of the law says you are speeding and has a shred of evidence such as pacing or a radar gun you are going to be SOL when it comes time to see a judge. In this case it is better just to let a traffic lawyer deal with it. In a perfect world we wouldn't need lawyers for speeding tickets or accountants to do our taxes, but our government is quite a mess.

Unfortunately the excuse that "everyone else was speeding" or all the muscle cars have loud mufflers doesn't really carry much weight. The judge will just point to the WAC and uphold the ticket.

I will consider the lawyer route. but if i have to fight it myself, here are my questions/defense for the officer.

The ticket was clocked at 70mph in a 60 zone on I-5.

1. Is your speedometer up to calibration date, if so, please provide calibration certificate and prove that it is.

2. The officer did not pace me properly, he immediately pulled me over as i passed him and did not maintain constant distance or speed as he caught up to me for a reasonable amount of time (usually at minimum 1/8-1/4 mile, i'll have to look a little more into it for washington).

3. According to title 45 article XX, I am allowed to pass on the right provided the condition is safe and the left lane vehicle is going below reasonable speed.

Good luck. My experiences with judges is that they have heard it all before, and don't want to hear it from us. They may offer to reduce or let you use your deferral on it. I'd definitely be interested to see how your defense goes, however I feel your chances of getting out of are slim to none.

#2 is the only one that MIGHT work in your favor. As pointed out, the judges and commissioners have heard it all... so your point will be falling on semi-deaf ears. FACTS work... so you'll need bona fide facts about the lack of pacing distance.. .not guesses. When I fought a "yellow-to-red" ticket years ago, I had to actually go to the signal, time the yellow with a stop watch (2.5 sec) to prove that it was shorter than the prescribed 3.0 seconds that the yellow light was supposed to be on. Had I simply said, "I felt the yellow was fast...." I would have been toast.

Good luck... looking fwd to a report on the outcome!

i'm doing a lot of research into traffic law articles. i'll let you guys know what happens.

Fighting without a lawyer is a tough one, unless you have evidence. The reality of the situation is lawyers and judges are a "club." Without proper representation your best bet is a reduction or a deferral. If you're lucky they might make you pay, but not effect your driving record.

Or set a court date, and give excuses every time to not show. Eventually the paper work piles up and it won't be worth it for them to keep the ticket

Actually I would say that is the one most likely to work against @gtslow. The LEO can say that he was traveling at a steady speed of <Speed Limit> at the time he was passed. Most likely his onboard camera will validate this (they show speed of travel, etc). The fact that he was passed means the other car was speeding. You can then debate the amount by which he was passed but that can actually be calculated off the tape with some pretty simple math (length of car, how long it takes to pass through the camera, you have how much faster "the perps" car was travelling than the cop car).

In the end, my advice is either go in with a lawyer, or pay the ticket. Unless you are experienced at doing this you are going to be found guilty.

Did you pass this officer on the right?

You are certainly within your rights to fight this yourself.

But I certainly don't suggest it. If you add up all the time you'll have to spend to do so, you'll be close to the cost of the traffic lawyer. And you will still have a fairly high chance of failing, thus paying the ticket, taking the point(s), and wasted all that time.

With a traffic lawyer, unless you were doing something atrocious, they will always get you off your first ticket. Either through a deferral, outright dismissal, or reduction to a non-point offense and a minor fine. As hard as it is to swallow, this is going to be the cheapest path overall.

You aren't going in front of Judge Judy, this will be somebody that has a huge amount of people to process through every day, and they all have excuses, most of them the weakest excuses ever. Traffic lawyers already know the judge, know the procedures, and know all the loopholes. And the Judges know that as well, so instead of wasting time on fighting, they'll just defer or go for the minor non-point fine.

lawyer the fuck up. I always do when i get into this sort of trouble than just forking over cash to the man.

http://oberlaw.com/

Talk to Emily.

Yes, i did pass him on the right. however according to http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.115

I am allowed to pass on the right provided the road condition is safe. article (2)

You're screwed

speeding while passing on the right does not meet

(2) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety.

in the eyes of the LEO or judge,

THISSS so much this. My old neighbor is a seattle police captain, ofcourse he gave me this exact advice after i had gotten a few speeding tickets, but it will be used very much in the future. He says it works everytime, :iono:

And make sure to definitely do it when you get it in Thurston County. I recently got a ticket there and lawyered up. The police fucked up terribly and the judge with the prosecutor unfairly ruled in their favor.
The Prosecutor argued their version of the facts and why they thought my arguments, while valid, shouldn't be fatal to their case.

The few things the cop fucked up in his report would've easily been dismissed in any county. They were:
1) Tuning his speedometer: doesn't say he tested the LEDs: so speed could be inaccurate
2) Moving rule: he has to compare speed on radar gun to speed of speedometer
- Needs a certificate calibrated recently [no records shown in Thurston]
3) Did not sign the affidavit:
- RCW 9A.72.085: Unsworn statements, certification
- Was there, but not dated, signed, and where it was signed
4) Cop said he's received training but did not state he was certified

I ended up paying for the ticket because the appealing process is way too costly and is not worth having an insurance increase in premium even if I won (which is VERY hard at this rate), I wouldn't of gotten any money back from the legal fees.

If they aren't playing fair, why should we? And if anyone says "just don't speed.", I will tell you that I wasn't speeding, the cop was an asshole who was using a radar detector wrongly, with 2 cars behind him, at least 1/2 mile in front of me, rainy weather but saw "hey a nice car, let's make some money" just to pull me over.

Anyways, sorry for the rant and good luck with you!

I will contest the hearing.

1) once i submit the ticket and get a date of hearing, I will delay the hearing.

2) I will request for Discovery to see what the officer's sworn statements are. I will request Discovery 15 days prior to court day(requirement is 14 days), the prosecutor must provide me with requested documents at least 7 days prior to hearing date. if I dont get it, i will motion for dismiss. (IRLJ 3.1)
also based on what i see here, i might decide to get a lawyer.

3) request the calibration record for the speedometer of the motorcycle the officer rode and verify calibration date. If it is out of calibration, i will motion for dismiss.

4) if all above fail, argue the officer did not pace me properly. he did not maintain a constant speed and distance of sufficient amount of time (less than 1/8-1/4 mile). if he argue other wise, i will ask him for where did he receive his training for pacing as a speed measurement method(which there is no official training)

5) i'm shit out of luck and pay the fee and just fucking hire a lawyer next time. or you know... officer don't show up.

i'll be doing plenty technicality research before the court date, hopefully i'll be ready. thanks for all the input guys. I suppose its about time for me to get pulled over for something...