Speeding Ticket - Alleged Speed And Posted Speed Limit Not Listed

[grey]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: New York. It's answerable at a TVB.

It's written up as 1180d. In the 'notes' section of the ticket is "speed in zone".

The fields of the ticket for "MPH" and "In MPH Zone" are both blank.


I plead not guilty by mail and have been issued a hearing date. On the letter about the hearing date it says I'm to appear for "SP N/REAS-PRUD".

I have two questions.

First, is it likely that I can get the ticket dismissed based on the officer's not actually specifying any details pertaining to the supposed speeding which led to his issuing the ticket?

Second, "SP N/REAS-PRUD" looks to me like 1180a, "speed not reasonable or prudent", rather than 1180d, which is just plain speeding. Is it possible to correct this, and, if so, should I do so before the hearing date?

[Mr. Knowitall]

It looks to me that the citation should be 1180(a), but the difference between an (a) and a (d) on a traffic ticket is sometimes nothing more than bad penmanship.

(a) No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.

* * *

(d)

1. Except as provided in subdivision (g) of this section, whenever maximum speed limits, other than school speed limits, have been established as authorized in sections sixteen hundred twenty, sixteen hundred twenty-two, sixteen hundred twenty-three, sixteen hundred twenty-seven, sixteen hundred thirty, sixteen hundred forty-three, sixteen hundred forty-four, sixteen hundred fifty-two, sixteen hundred sixty-two-a, sixteen hundred sixty-three, and sixteen hundred seventy, no person shall drive in excess of such maximum speed limits at any time.

2. Except as provided in subdivision (g) of this section, whenever maximum speed limits, other than school speed limits, have been established with respect to any restricted highway as authorized in section sixteen hundred twenty-five, no person shall drive in excess of such maximum speed limits at any time.

You can try contesting the ticket and, if you're right and the ticket isn't amended before the end of the prosecution's case, try to get a dismissal based upon there being no basis for the court to find you violated § 1180(d).

[grey]

It looks to me that the citation should be 1180(a), but the difference between an (a) and a (d) on a traffic ticket is sometimes nothing more than bad penmanship.

I agree regarding the possible penmanship excuse. Except in the 'memo' field of the ticket the officer wrote "speed in zone".

A quick google search reveals (in the following document, as just one instance) that 1180d is commonly referred to as "speed in zone". 1180a being similarly known as "speed not reasonable and prudent" http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/...tltitlevii.pdf

"Your honor, I'd like to introduce the following DMV, State, and court documents as evidence to show that 'speed in zone' is the name by which '1180d' is commonly known. I've highlighted the relevant sections.

Having established this fact, it should be clear that the officer having specifically written out 'speed in zone' establishes that the citation is intended to be for 1180d."

You can try contesting the ticket and, if you're right and the ticket isn't amended before the end of the prosecution's case, try to get a dismissal based upon there being no basis for the court to find you violated § 1180(d).

With regard to the possibility of the ticket being ammended- a judge letting an otherwise correct ticket be ammended with, say, the officer's signature, is one thing: the officer wrote it, clearly he intended to sign it.

But allowing such critical facts as the specifics of what I was actually cited for to be added? Three months after the ticket was issued? The mind boggles.

From what I've read, the criteria for conviction in the TVB courts is 'clear and convincing' evidence, and you're either guilty of what you're charged with or you're not.

I'm convinced that no evidince introduced in a hearing could clearly and convincingly demonstrate that I'm guilty of what I was cited for because as nearly as I can tell there's no charge to prove.

So that's my case for dismissal... Thoughts or suggestions?

[grey]

Hearing was today. Dismissed.

[chuckycheese]

Thanks for reporting back. So few ever do.