Speeding in School Zone - Malfunctioning School Light

[JILs]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: FL (Broward County)

Around 6:30 am I was headed back home and noticed the school zone light was on and slowed down from 30 mph to 15 mph. I then approached a red traffic light and stopped, once the traffic light turned green I forgot about the school zone light (their where no children around, school buses or anything to remind me the light was on and classes for this school doesn't start until 8:10 am, breakfast begins at 7:40 am) and proceeded to drive at the normal posted speed limit. Once I passed by the school I remembered the school light was on and immediately began to slow down that's when a police officer pulled up behind me and pulled me over for violation of speeding in a school zone and no seat belt "driver seating on buckled seat belt".

Now after doing a little research I found out that under F.S. Section 316.1895(5) it states the school zone speed limit cannot be legally enforced more that 30 before the start of breakfast. The time written on the citation by the officer when it was issued was 7:00am. He also wrote that the school zone time for that area is 0640-715. I also took photos of the school signs posted at the light I was waiting at and it says 7:10 am.

I am requesting an affidavit of defense by mail pleading no contest and would like to know what my defense should be ? I believe from the information I've gathered that the school zone light was malfunctioning and the officer had the incorrect school zone time written on the citation. And if the traffic stop was unjustified will that dismiss the no seat belt "driver seating on buckled seat belt" citation also ?

[blewis]

I am requesting an affidavit of defense by mail pleading no contest and would like to know what my defense should be ?

I don't know about FL, but in WA, if you plead "no contest", you are, basically, pleading "guilty". Since "no contest" literally means that you are NOT contesting the ticket, why would you need to worry about a defense? In WA, if you wish to contest a ticket, you MUST plead "not guilty".

And if the traffic stop was unjustified will that dismiss the no seat belt "driver seating on buckled seat belt" citation also ?

Probably not. If the officer had "probable cause" to stop you for speeding (whether or not the ticket stands), and even if a seat belt infraction is considered "secondary", you can, indeed, be cited for it. You would have to prove that there really was NO probable cause to begin with. And, that's a LOT harder to prove than just "not guilty".

[JILs]

From the Affidavit obtained from the Broward County Clerk's office it states that by pleading NO CONTEST and file this affidavit as an explanation of what happened and as a statement that the hearing officer or judge can consider before pronouncing a sentence. By pleading no contest I understand that I am not pleading admitting or denying that the infraction contest. I understand that I am not required to make any statement. I understand that the hearing officer or fudge (I think they meant judge) will determine any appropriate sentence and decide whether to adjudicate me guilty.

that's why I thought it would be better to plead no contest (I don't know?) because from my understanding it says they still have to review all the evidence and I'm not pleading guilty. Also with the seatbelt law in FL 316.614(4b) I didn't see anything mentioned about having on the shoulder strap but not having on the lap strap being in violation of the code ? The officer won't have known I had the lap strap buckled behind me unless he pulled me over.

[paleolith]

Key words in what you cited are "judge can consider before pronouncing a sentence". In other words, by pleading "no contest" you are pleading guilty but asking for mercy in the sentencing.

My personal opinion is that you will be much better off pleading guilty to the seat belt offense. Technically a judge should consider the charges separately. But as a practical matter, if you try to get off one charge on a technicality when you are obviously guilty, you are less likely to get careful consideration of your challenge to the other charge.

Edward