I am Devastated

[Lakal]

Lakal fell afoul of the law yesterday.

While approaching a downtown intersection the light turned yellow the second my wheels entered the intersection so I went across. A short while later - maybe three blocks along -I saw a Columbia Police Car with siren blowing and lights on behind me. I eventually was able to pull to the right to let him pass but to my horror, it was ME he was stopping.

He said I had run a red light and I am positive I did not. He said very little and gave me a ticket for Disregarding Traffic Device. On the bottom of this ticket he hand wrote Bond 252.50 - is this a $ amount? There is no $ sign.

I've only ever had one traffic ticket in my life and that was over ten years ago.

What should I do? Pay the fine by mail? Dispute the charge - is there a chance I would be heard in a he(Police Officer) she (old lady) said situation? I showing up in court mandatory.I am a reasonably intelligent person but the traffic ticket information is very confusing to me.

Is there a website I can find out more information. Do any of you have
advice? :(

[Captain Worley]

One ticket I got, they cut the points and fine in half just for showing up.

The other ticket, I pled to an in town ordinance violation. No points, and the ticket isn't on my record, but a little higher fine. It was worth it, though, since it was a four point violation.

[swampfox]

Always dispute traffic tickets. You didn't even violate the law and they should drop it. But at least you're almost sure to get it reduced.

[Olive]

someee courts let you make a "plea agreement" that effectively reduces the fine but still holds a "guilty" against your driver record. If you "dispute" the ticket, the agreement may not be offered to you.

[swampfox]

The thing about traffic tickets is that there is almost never any physical evidence of any kind. Yet in the traffic courts the standards of proof are the same as in any other court.

I don't want to see the guilty get off, but in the case of Lakal the witness of the cop (assuming he doesn't have pictures) is not much evidence at all, assuming you are not in one of those magistrate's courts where the presiding "judge" doesn't listen to the case and can barely read.

Dispute it.

[Olive]

I won't say that all magistrates or municipal judges are in fact brilliant legal minds to be reckoned with but cases have been made on officer testimony alone for many years. They are still being made on officer testimony, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. That dosen't mean the judges are ignorant. I think the best advice is to follow your heart.

If you are absolutely certain you did not run the light and can't bring yourself to say "guilty" plead not guilty and see if the officer proves it. Be prepared for the officer to do just that. Do not expect a reduced fine, though the ticket won't be increased either.

If you are not certain THAT you ran the light OR would like help in the face of a greedy insurance company without going to trial ASK the officer for help ( a town ordinance ticket instead of a red light ticket).

Just my thoughts, for whatever they are worth. There are as many courts out there as Baskin Robbins has flavors, but the fundamental principles of law and the golden rule are present in most courts across the state.

Yes I said most, LOL.

[swampfox]

I'm sure that there are some good magistrates. But I have seen some that would have been laughable if it were not for the fact that their jobs are supposed to be very serious. (I was never on trial myself.) I can never forget being on the jury in a Richland magistrate's court, back when it was down on Huger Street when the jail was there. That court handled almost exclusively drunk driving trials, which in my mind are extremely serious matters. The magistrate in his black robes sat behind the bench with his feet up reading the paper or sleeping just about the whole time as the attorneys conducted their roles in front of him. When there was an objection they actually had to wake him up and tell him what all had led to the objection so he could rule on it. It was clear that the attorneys were used to it, and there was a good deal of snickering on their parts.

When he (magistrate) did actually say something, he could barely make a complete sentence, usually didn't. When he was instructing the jury he was reading it off of a card in such a way that you could tell that he didn't understand what he was reading (skipped the hard words, long pauses in front of other medium-hard words). Never really completed it.

As you know there was, up until just a few years ago, no education requirement for magistrates at all. Finally a bill was passed that they had to at least have a high school education.

I have seen a case or two decided only on the word of the officer, and in a perfect world that should be all that is necessary. But I believe our friend above when she says that she didn't run the red light. And once I went to court with a friend who was charged in Lugoff with illegal dumping immediately after the constable who was there at the time told him to dump the stuff exactly where he dumped it. Idiot magistrate did not even listen to the attorney that my friend's company hired to go to the "trial" with him. "I've known this constable for a lot of years and he ain't never lied to me yet, ain't that right Constable?" "Yes, suh!" Guilty. Maximum fine.

It doesn't have to be this way. Some attorneys make big money and that's what they want to do, but there are plenty who don't and would be glad to be appointed to a magistrate's job, and they have law school degrees! You would at least expect them to know something about the law. Many magistrates, as I hinted at above, can barely read!

This, obviously, is not justice. But it affects people's lives in significant ways. And how are they supposed to feel about their government afterward? I think that patriotism suffers at the hands of magistrates more than at those of most professions, but certainly not as much as at the hands of nearly all politicians.

We had a chick (yes, a chick) writing here a couple of years ago bragging about how she had a Lexington County magistrate in her pocket and was going to walk on (I believe it was) a drunk driving charge. She gave enough information that we almost were able to pin down exactly which magistrate. She got scared and stopped writing here.

I learned in the old days and it's still true today, "ALWAYS question authority."

[Olive]

Those judges are characters for sure, and you hit the nail on the head when you say it WOULD be laughable.

Anecdotes aside (and I think we have some simialr ones) what happens so often in magistrate and municipal cases is people plead not guilty not because they are without guilt, but they are not familliar with the system and hope to get a reduction. People want consideration. Many, many times and individual feels the only way to have their mitigating circumstances heard is to plead not guilty and hope for the best.

Judges demand a plea one way or another, as they should, but won't listen to the person before trial. A lot of people would like help with the fine and insurance weighs heavy on their minds. Courts could lighten their dockets by explaining the system and any help the officer may want to offer. Recently, some Judges are doing exactly that. I even think Columbia city court has a video at the beginning of court.

I wonder, in a perfect world, if people would plead not guilty if there were no fine or insurance penalty? Excuse my fascination with the not guilty plea, but it is just plain interesting to me....

Prosecutors (including law enforcement) are used to proving their cases, and I'm not even sure that is questioning authority. Its part of their job. I wouldn't question their authority to issue the citation or detain the person though, that's usually detrimental to any consideration at trial.

[swampfox]

I don't necessarily mean to question whether they have authority in general, rather whether they have as much as they seem to be making use of at the time. And not necessarily at the point of arrest (although that is sometimes proper, as with some of the denials of free speech that we've seen the Bush's goons perform lately). But in court I would, or I would expect my attorney to, question their authority in every way. If they have it, fine, and if I should have known that they have it and can reasonably be said to be just wasting the court's time, well, that's my responsibility and I'll live with the consequences. What I'm trying to say is that I would not waste the court's time, but so often people are wrongly dealt with in court because they did not understand their rights and their attorneys didn't object when they should. I do like to think that if I were guilty of a crime I would plead guilty to it, but it's difficult to think that way since I don't do crimes, except with an occasional joke that have been called crimes on this very discussion board. (Hey, I'm not the only one.)

I really like your idea of some kind of pre-trial education session. I think it would do a world of good.

I don't read a lot of science fiction anymore, but there was one a few years ago by Arthur Clarke that I believe was called "The Light of Other Days". In it somebody invented a way to photograph or even video events that happened in the past at any location. Suddenly it was not possible to lie effectively and the justice system became an entirely different experience. A provocative thought, that lying is such a fundamental part of the way civilization operates that the absence of it would make life basically different.

[Captain Worley]

Lakal, I don't know if you've gone to trial yet, but technically, if any part of your vehicle is in the intersection when the light turns red, you've run the red light. This can bite you on those long intesections (Assembly and Elmwood for instance). This applies to gridlock as well. If you are stuck in the intersection and the light turns red, brrrrrrrrr, red light runner, 4 pts.

[DixieChic]

I don't know about Richland, but there are some magistrates are just plain rude. If you talked to them the way they talk to the public then you would either have a very high fine or a very long time in jail. There should be some kind of reprimand for this type of treatment of the public. They are supposed to be professional. They seem to forget that some people are not used to being in court and are scared and upset. I know they see some wild things but still we are all still supposed to be civilized people. Some of the things I have seen and heard some of them say to the public is just not called for and should not be allowed.

[swampfox]

I agree with you, but they are not required to be nice. They are required to be fair and "blind" to anything that is not properly presented to them in the court.

If a judge or a magistrate fails in those responsibilities you will need an attorney to guide you through an appeal and possibly a process seeking judicial sanctions. That is a bad spot to be in, but sometimes it's the only way.

The system does actually work, but sometimes you have to make it work unfortunately.

[DixieChic]

Fair and blind is one thing but to be grossly mean is no excuse. It is one thing to state the law, but to make fun on someone, just shows their immaturity and they should not be alllowed on the bench.

[swampfox]

You're absolutely right. If it were up to me they would not be on the bench.

But what if we chose all of the officials in our government based on their good manners? There wouldn't be many of today's crop left.

I was just saying that if I were a defendant or a prosecutor I'd rather have a jerk that was fair and blind, AND knew a lot about law, than some illiterate magistrate like those I wrote about before.

They all get their jobs because of who they know anyway.

You know in some states judges are elected in general elections, in others they are appointed by the governor, and in some (like ours) they are either appointed or elected by the general assembly. The general assembly is not interested in justice, nor are most governors I've seen. Of all the choices, our system is perhaps not the best. Although in higher courts we have been extremely lucky to have gotten some fine judges (not all, but some).

Must have been some mistake.

[LEO]

Swamp, I take it you arent to partial to us LEO's ? By the way, points on anything other that a speeding violation cannot be reduced. I agree with you though, I you feel that you are in the right, by all means come to court and plead your case. Know this though, most magistrates will first offer you help on the ticket if you plead guilty. If you plead not guilty and request a bench trial and are found guilty, dont look for any help.

[swampfox]

If you had read many of my posts you would know that I support legitimate law enforcement in every way. The only exception I can think of is when officers are ordered to do things that they know are wrong, like tasering legitimate political speakers as was done a few days ago during a speech by Senator Kerry. I know that must be a tough spot to be in, but we got to live with ourselves first.

I said above that in a perfect world a cop's testimony should be all that is necessary to prove a case. But this world is not perfect, and on a very few occasions I have seen cops lie through their teeth. So if one is not guilty of a crime such as running a red light, why should he/she plead guilty? The justice system is supposed to operate in such a way that the state has to prove its case against a defendant. Look me in the eye and tell me that, even if there are no quotas as such, a cop who writes less tickets than the other cops is not looked at with suspicion by his supervisors. So it gets late in the day and sometimes better judgement can be diminished. It's not a deadly sin, but its one that we all should oppose.

I have several cop friends and a brother-in-law who is a cop, and when I was still teaching in schools I worked with cops a lot to try to do what was right regarding school crimes (hoping that small crimes, treated fairly and according to the law, would not turn into big crimes as they often do when covered up, as they are consistently by school administrators). I had a great relationship with the captain at my local substation. We actually worked together on a few law-related educational projects. I am not against law enforcement.

We are all human, and we are all sometimes weaker than we'd normally like to think of ourselves as being. So yeah, if I didn't run a red light and a cop says I did, he's got to show proof in an honest court with an honest judge (or at least one that can read, unlike in many of our magistrate's courts). And if I'm found guilty with no evidence, I'm going to appeal. That is one of the duties of citizens in a democracy.

Going to court for traffic tickets or other minor offenses are about the only times that most of us interact with government directly. It should not be the case that we come away from these interactions having suffered an injustice. If it's a young person who has that experience, just think how that could influence him/her. Not good at all.

I have rights, and I'm pretty familiar with what they are, and I'll just be danged if I'm going to give them up for an illegitimate reason.

Plea deals when I did nothing wrong? I don't think so.

[Olive]

Why do people think there are quotas? I guess at one time there were, in a misguided attempt to manage productivity. Ticket revenue certainly is not a major contributor to a department's budget. Most agencies in SC are understaffed and "calls holding" is a common occurrance. My sympathies to the patrol officer that "goes looking for" tickets when they should be en route to a call. THAT will quickly cause a patrol officer to run afoul of a supervisor, not to mention the other people that he/she works with. A quota would be contrary to the mission.

[swampfox]

I don't believe that there are quotas, as in "Write 30 traffic tickets today or else!" But if an officer consistently writes far fewer tickets (or far more for that matter) than other officers with similar areas to patrol, would you say that this would not attract the attention of supervisors?

I can't imagine that it would not. And I'm not saying that there is some criminal conspiracy going on on the part of cops. I mean if I were the supervisor I would wonder the same thing. I'd look into it and if there was nothing wrong it would be over. But people usually don't like having their supervisors looking at them with suspicion. So things happen. Could this possibly explain the writing of tickets for infractions (such as running red lights, or some of the other anecdotal items that I related above*) that did not occur?

[*Mind you, I was a witness to those myself.]

First I'm making what I think is a reasonable supposition.

Then, the chances of coincidence are just ridiculous.

[anti-babble]

Lakal, I don't know if you've gone to trial yet, but technically, if any part of your vehicle is in the intersection when the light turns red, you've run the red light. This can bite you on those long intesections (Assembly and Elmwood for instance). This applies to gridlock as well. If you are stuck in the intersection and the light turns red, brrrrrrrrr, red light runner, 4 pts.



Actually if your vehicle breaks the plane of the intersection before the light turns red then you are lawfully in the intersection. That is why there is a brief period of time where all of the lights are red, so that the traffic can clear before oppossing traffic released. IF you in the intersection stopped (i.e waiting to turn left) and before you can turn your light turns red and oppossing traffic gets a green light, the must yield to you prior to proceeding.

[Doubleshot]

SECTION 56-5-970. Traffic-control signal legend.
Whenever traffic is controlled by traffic-control signals exhibiting different colored lights or colored lighted arrows, successively one at a time or in combination, only the colors, green, red and yellow, shall be used except for special pedestrian signals carrying a word legend. Such lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians as follows:
(a) Green indication:
1. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.
2. Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
3. Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian-control signal, as provided in Section 56-5-990, pedestrians facing any green signal, except when the sole green signal is a turn arrow, may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(b) Steady yellow indication:
1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter.
2. Pedestrians facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian-control signal as provided in Section 56-5-990, are advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown and no pedestrian shall then start to cross the roadway.
(c) Steady red indication:
1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line but, if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in item 3.
2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow, and unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line but, if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication permitting the movement indicated by such arrow is shown except as provided in item 3.
3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street after stopping as required by item 1 or 2. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
4. Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian-control signal as provided in Section 56-5-3110, pedestrians facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal alone shall not enter the roadway.

I didn't see anything in the code of law's that indicates that if any part of your vehicle was in the intersection that you are in effect running the light. There maybe some law somewhere else, but I am not aware of it.

[swampfox]

I had always heard that if the light turned red while any part of your car was under it then that constituted running the light. In reality I don't think most cops would be that picky unless the driver was reckless in some other way too.

[cuebald]

Doubleshot, welcome to the land of jailhouse lawyers, jackleg engineers, pretty talkers, fancy liars, BS artistes, know-it-alls, know-nothing-and-tell-it-all-anyways,and general good ol' boys and sometimes girls. We create order from chaos and resolve the problems of the Universe here every day.

Delighted to have you among us.

[swampfox]

Entropy! I will defeat it at all costs!

AT ALL COSTS!

[Doubleshot]

Thanks for the welcome cuebald. I have always heard that if your front wheels were across the line when the light turned red, you were safe, so to speak. Seems as though an officer can give you a ticket for ignoring a sign or signal pretty much if he so deems that you ran the signal. About 11 years ago I was comming home from Lexington Hospital after my wife delivered our new baby boy. It was about 3:45 in the AM and I was getting off the I-26 at Harbison. The light was red and I was sitting there with the only car anywhere in view, behind me at the light. After a few minutes I thought the guy behind me was by now thinking me to be foolish for just sitting there waiting on nobody, so I went... W-R-O-N-G!... The guy behind me was a Transport cop. I got a ticket. When I showed up for traffic court, the Transport cop was knocking down tickets for folks he had stopped for speeding. Some were for 75 in the 55 as you come into town by Malfunction Junction. Whe I asked him about the possibility of reducing my ticket I was told no such luck for disregarding a traffic signal.

[cuebald]

First rule of ignoring the law:

Leave no witnesses.

[Lakal]

We've been out of town for a few weeks so missed all your comments. Returned a few days ago in order to attend court. I had every intention of pleading 'not guilty' - I really did. But I didn't. There was a huge crowd and I would have been there for hours and hours. Just before court started an announcement was made that the fines would be reduced if one pled guilty but not the points. I paid the reduced fine and am now the most careful (and probably most annoying) driver out on the highways today with FOUR points on my license.

It's my opinion that traffic court is a crap shoot for the most part and the law has little to do with it. All of you reading this have probably violated a traffic law and it's just luck whether or not you are caught. Although in this instance I felt I was not guilty I am accepting my 'punishment' in the spirit of I probably deserved it for something else.

Friends have since told me county and state law enforcement will reduce points yet the City of Columbia says it does not have the jurisdiction to do this. I wonder what that is all about.

Anyway, glad to be back - have you all been playing nice?

[cuebald]

I disagree. I am the most irritating driver on the road. I get out on the highways and frequently drive the posted speed limits.

Talk about road rage.

BTW - Welcome Back. You were missed.

Now, define "nice".

[Lakal]

I disagree. I am the most irritating driver on the road. I get out on the highways and frequently drive the posted speed limits.

Talk about road rage.

BTW - Welcome Back. You were missed.

Now, define "nice".

Goodness gracious, NO - Cuey! People must really loathe and detest you.

Define 'nice' ?.......erm..well obviously that is.....well, oh..clearly it means.............OK you got me!:-)

[swampfox]

I shall always believe in your innocence, Lakal.

And should your infractions mount, such that by this one you are deemed above the limit and sent to prison, I will still believe and will speak loudly in your favor.

[Lakal]

You will, Swampy? Now you've gone and given me a nice warm fuzzy feeling.

[swampfox]

We all need a warm and fuzzy feeling when our liberty is at stake.

I am honored to be of service,

[Olive]

Speaking of sci-fi things, (ok we were a few posts ago with the can't lie devices) what if we automatically got all the points we deserved all of the time? That would create a community of annoying drivers.

[swampfox]

That would be interesting.

It would be a different world.