I received an HOV violation yesterday on 66 westbound. The cop said he saw me jump out of the HOV lane as soon as I saw him, and get over to my right. I never drove in the HOV lane, I was in the 2nd lane my entire commute which is only 2 exits down. Is this worth fighting, the cop lied and must of saw a vehicle similar to mine...

Or the cop told the truth and you are full of crap. BS detector going off here. Plead guilty, pay the fine, go on with life.

Really... Why would I waste my time asking the F'ing question, if I wasn't telling the truth. There are always Cops on 66, I know not to drive the HOV...

If you really didn't do it, obviously the cop will not be able to testify truthfully that he had any conclusive evidence to base the ticket on. Despite stupid goober rants about cops lying under oath all the time, that doesn't actually happen very often. Cops have regular court days and if they get a reputation among judges for being suspect in their work, well, let's just say they won't end up qualifying for one of those cushy public sector pensions that the goobers also love to rant about. If you don't mind the time and effort of appearing, it might well pay off, as there would be a good chance of the officer not showing or not being able to convince the judge that it was unequivocally you that he saw. You get off either way. Practice sounding simple, honest, sincere, and law-abiding in the meantime.

Thanks, I am going to fight it...on principal, because I didn't do it!

MJC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, I am going to fight it...on principal,
> because I didn't do it!

And you will lose.

Let's assume you didn't do it and the police officer saw someone else in a similar car jump out of the HOV lanes. Suppose when you passed the officer you were following a red SUV. When the officer testifies at trial he will mention that he specifically saw you cut behind a red SUV whether he saw it or not. The officer may not have noted what other cars were in the lane next to yours when you passed him, but when he testifies he will say there were no other cars of a similar description in your immediate vicinity.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you will lose. Let's assume you didn't do it and
> the police officer saw someone else in a similar car
> jump out of the HOV lanes. Suppose when you passed
> the officer you were following a red SUV. When the
> officer testifies at trial he will mention that he
> specifically saw you cut behind a red SUV whether
> he saw it or not. The officer may not have noted
> what other cars were in the lane next to yours
> when you passed him, but when he testifies he will
> say there were no other cars of a similar
> description in your immediate vicinity.

Requires a paranoid and quite delusional belief that cops are out there deliberately intending to give tickets to innocent drivers. Perhaps because there are so few bad drivers out there providing reasons why they deserve the tickets instead. If the OP did not in fact commit an HOV violation, then the cop will have simply erred in his identification. Under oath, he will have to admit to uncertainty, perhaps ascribing it all to having not taken sufficiently detailed contemporaneous notes in his little testimony logbook. Judges are impressed by solid-citizen type defendants who take the time and effort to appear in court simply because they know they are innocent. If the cop can't counter that sort of conviction with some of his own, the charge will be dropped. "The defendant is free to go."

That's why there is a court system. Go West Young Man! Let us know how you do.

If you dress appropriately and speak respectfully there is also a chance that even if you are not found innocent you could get a reduced fine.

justice for all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's why there is a court system. Go West Young
> Man! Let us know how you do.


Don't listen to the faggots like Bill N, fight that shit.

Go to court and tell the truth. Wear a suit, look clean-cut. Expect the officer or trooper to show up, especially if it was a state trooper. Expect to go last/late in the docket. Going last/late is good.

Try to talk to the ACA (prosecutor) beforehand. Tell him that the officer or trooper made a mistake in identifying you, that you didn't drive in the HOV lane, and that you intend to plead not guilty. This is the conversation that will make you go last/late. Again, going last/late is good.

DO NOT call the officer or trooper a liar - don't even IMPLY it - even if it becomes clear that he's willing to lie (as Bill N. pointed out, some officers will simply testify that they saw you shift over, and won't admit that they have some doubt).

If the judge asks you something akin to "the officer seems pretty sure it was you. Do you have anything to say to that?" simply state that it must have been an honest mistake on the officer's part. If you have a common color/make/model of car, that's the time to note it. ("I do drive a black Toyota Camry, Your Honor, and there are a lot of them on the road.")

DO NOT be sarcastic. DO NOT roll your eyes or make any gestures or frustrated faces. Be calm and be honest.

Good luck.

Truth v Fiction Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Requires a paranoid and quite delusional belief
> that cops are out there deliberately intending to
> give tickets to innocent drivers.

Do you seriously believe an officer is going to say to the judge "I saw someone in what looked like a silver Honda Accord a fifth of a mile away jump out of the HOV lane. I think it was the Defendant, but I cannot be 100% sure because it is a common looking car and I didn't keep my eyes on it the whole time"? Of course not. Police officers who go to the trouble to write tickets want to make sure they stand up in court.

@ I have beat them in court 2-Have at it, and I wish you the best. I'm just saying don't go into it with a belief that justice will prevail.

Go to court, it is worth it. By paying the fine you are admitting that you are guilty. If you take the time to show up in court, there is a chance the charges will be dropped or you will get a lesser fine.

you all have to be a bunch or re(publican)tards....

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you seriously believe an officer is going to
> say to the judge "I saw someone in what looked
> like a silver Honda Accord a fifth of a mile away
> jump out of the HOV lane. I think it was the
> Defendant, but I cannot be 100% sure because it is
> a common looking car and I didn't keep my eyes on
> it the whole time"? Of course not. Police
> officers who go to the trouble to write tickets
> want to make sure they stand up in court.

It's time to hang up the phone, dude. The premise here is that the OP is in fact innocent. If he is, then the officer's case can only be flawed and he almost certainly knows that. Your contention is that the officer will simply testify falsely when it is far more likely that he will testify truthfully about the limits of what he thought he saw and what he wrote down in his notes at the time. A tie typically goes to the runner in cases like these, and there is a strong presumption that credible citizens do not in fact show up in court unless they are actually innocent. It's a little like badminton, where the officer has to be able to win by two, and he doesn't have that going in.

Fairfaxian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to court and tell the truth. Wear a suit, look
> clean-cut. Expect the officer or trooper to show
> up, especially if it was a state trooper. Expect
> to go last/late in the docket. Going last/late is
> good.
>
> Try to talk to the ACA (prosecutor) beforehand.
> Tell him that the officer or trooper made a
> mistake in identifying you, that you didn't drive
> in the HOV lane, and that you intend to plead not
> guilty. This is the conversation that will make
> you go last/late. Again, going last/late is
> good.
>
> DO NOT call the officer or trooper a liar - don't
> even IMPLY it - even if it becomes clear that he's
> willing to lie (as Bill N. pointed out, some
> officers will simply testify that they saw you
> shift over, and won't admit that they have some
> doubt).
>
> If the judge asks you something akin to "the
> officer seems pretty sure it was you. Do you have
> anything to say to that?" simply state that it
> must have been an honest mistake on the officer's
> part. If you have a common color/make/model of
> car, that's the time to note it. ("I do drive a
> black Toyota Camry, Your Honor, and there are a
> lot of them on the road.")
>
> DO NOT be sarcastic. DO NOT roll your eyes or
> make any gestures or frustrated faces. Be calm
> and be honest.
>
> Good luck.

all of this, forget about anyone telling the truth/lying because i'm sure the officer thinks himself in the right just as much as you believe yourself to be, follow all of this because appearance is HUGE

"when it is far more likely that he will testify truthfully about the limits of what he thought he saw and what he wrote down in his notes at the time"

That is where we disagree my friend. You seem to think that the police officer is nothing more than a disinterested witness simply there to tell his story, while I believe he has an interest in having his professional judgment upheld, even if he does not care about the verdict or sentence.

I don't know what you base your statement "there is a strong presumption that credible citizens do not in fact show up in court unless they are actually innocent" on. In theory this is how it should work. From what I have seen and from what others have told me, the assumption in traffic court is that if you are charged, then you are guilty. When it comes down to the officer's word against the driver's the officer almost always wins.

Thanks for all of the input, I will fight it and see what happens. For the record I drive a common Black midsized crossover/SUV.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "when it is far more likely that he will testify
> truthfully about the limits of what he thought he
> saw and what he wrote down in his notes at the
> time"
>
> That is where we disagree my friend.

As I said, paranoid delusions. Issuing tickets is part of a traffic patrol officer's job. Nobody bats 1.000. Meanwhile, being sworn to tell the truth actually means something to people in the professions involved.

> I don't know what you base your statement "there
> is a strong presumption that credible citizens do
> not in fact show up in court unless they are
> actually innocent" on. In theory this is how it
> should work. From what I have seen and from what
> others have told me, the assumption in traffic
> court is that if you are charged, then you are
> guilty. When it comes down to the officer's word
> against the driver's the officer almost always
> wins.

In simple point of fact, judges are keenly aware of the fact that the integrity of traffic court is dependent upon the willingness of citizens to appear in person when they feel that they are in fact in the right. Guilty people simply mail in the checks. People who go to the trouble of showing up do so because they have a point they want to make. Judges want to hear that point if it is at all rational and reasonable. If the officer cannot outdo the reasonableness of a defendant's claim, the case will be tossed. What we have here is part of a "justice" system, not a "fleecing" system. We're not talking about how the old boys like to do it back in Goober Holler.

If you are a public servant, the officer will help you. What you need to do is contact the Department and ask if you can ask the officer questions about the stop. I got out of a ticket traveling at very high speed many years ago on a highway with no vehicles and I had just purchased an ultra high performance vehicle. The state trooper have identified me from trucker CB chatter. The trooper gauged his speed against a highway sign with radar and made a visible observation that I was gaining distance on him. He wrote the ticket as 81 mph based upon his speed of 80.

If you can prove that the identity of the vehicle is in question, you win!

The FIRST thing you must do when you receive a traffic ticket...is ask for a continuance. Typically, the court will give you 3 continuances before trying the case in your absence.

3 continuances will draw the case out at least 9 months...

And that creates a million possible scenarios in which the officer could miss the court date and your charges are dismissed.

Just make sure you don't list your reasons frivolously...

Jefrojones jones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are a public servant, the officer will help
> you. What you need to do is contact the
> Department and ask if you can ask the officer
> questions about the stop. I got out of a ticket
> traveling at very high speed many years ago on a
> highway with no vehicles and I had just purchased
> an ultra high performance vehicle. The state
> trooper have identified me from trucker CB
> chatter. The trooper gauged his speed against a
> highway sign with radar and made a visible
> observation that I was gaining distance on him.
> He wrote the ticket as 81 mph based upon his speed
> of 80. If you can prove that the identity of the
> vehicle is in question, you win!

I'm not thinking that there are any judges anywhere who will want to hear any point you have to make about anything.

You won't the case, pay the fine.

Truth v Fiction Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said, paranoid delusions.

Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

> In simple point of fact, judges are keenly aware
> of the fact that the integrity of traffic court is
> dependent upon the willingness of citizens to
> appear in person when they feel that they are in
> fact in the right. Guilty people simply mail in
> the checks. People who go to the trouble of
> showing up do so because they have a point they
> want to make. Judges want to hear that point if
> it is at all rational and reasonable. If the
> officer cannot outdo the reasonableness of a
> defendant's claim, the case will be tossed.

I have to wonder in reading this how many days you've spent sitting in traffic court listening to trials. Most of those who show up are pretty clearly guilty. I suspect if those clearly guilty drivers just paid in their fine, the system might work more like what you describe.

> What we have here is part of a "justice" system, not a
> "fleecing" system. We're not talking about how
> the old boys like to do it back in Goober Holler.

You are assuming that an assumption that the officer's testimony is a correct can only exist in a fleecing system.

Take the advice of Fairfaxian above. Also, write down our own notes now, before you forget. If you don't know where the office was parked, contact the DA and ask to see the officer's notes that he will be using. If the officer was more than a 100 yards away, in heavy traffic, the chances of him being incorrect go up. If you don't have any other tickets in the past 3 - 5 years, try to get the DA to drop the case. If you have to go to court, your chances are probably 50/50. You may be able to get the judge to throw out the points and/or change the charge to something less (e.g. failure to obey highway sign). Good luck

Thanks for seeking legal help on FFXU. Go directly to jail.

496 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for seeking legal help on FFXU. Go directly
> to jail.


It' s really not a bad idea- some of us have been through it already and since we live in Fairfax we can give a Fairfax-Specific answer.

Also sometimes its better to hear it from your peers rather than a lawyer forum (although the lawyer who posted above was correct).

One really should hit freeadvice.com, nolo.com, one of those....but asking here at least you have an idea of what could happen to you!!!

bogey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also sometimes its better to hear it from your
> peers rather than a lawyer forum (although the
> lawyer who posted above was correct).

Well, except that a traffic continuance will be only to the officer's next scheduled court date, and you can't get a second or further continuance without the approval of a judge. Judges like to see reasons. Maybe you are in the hospital or need more time to get your speedometer calibrated. No rational reason = no continuance.

Prove it loser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You won't the case, pay the fine.


Huh?