Hearing Officer Rejected My Arguments

Just had a hearing for a traffic infraction (speeding ticket) and I did not know the things that happened during that hearing were even legal.

I mentioned the officer's laser certification was for a different person than the person that was there (the middle initial wasn't anything even close to what it was supposed to be) and the "Hearing Officer" had no interest in it and it was just chalked up to being a "simple typo". I then mentioned that the fact of what the officer said that the road conditions were poor and that the roads were wet after a "recent rain" was totally false and I offered to show proof, the "Hearing Officer" wasn't interested one bit in seeing my proof and told me that it was irrelevant, even though the officer just lied under oath. I then stated that the officer claimed to be running lidar on oncoming traffic in the left lane, I wasn't in the left lane and then the officer went back on what he had just said not only in his citation notes but with his own words a couple minutes prior.

How is this allowed in a court of JUSTICE? The officer amended his citation, raised the speed higher to give me a higher fine and then asked the "Hearing Officer" that he raise the fine even more. How is all of this allowed without any regard for anything I had to show as proof it wasn't me?

I guess they just weren't "hearing" you.


Without knowing what and how things happened specifically, often times it is procedural gaffs that allow them to ignore your arguments. If you do not present your claims in a proper fashion at the correct time, they become meaningless.

as to amending the citation; had he noted on the citation a higher speed than you were initially charged with? as to asking the hearing officer to raise the fine; cop can offer his opinion as to why a higher fine might be proper.

Quote:

---

I mentioned the officer's laser certification was for a different person than the person that was there (the middle initial wasn't anything even close to what it was supposed to be) and the "Hearing Officer" had no interest in it and it was just chalked up to being a "simple typo".

---

The Hearing Officer is correct. The wrong middle initial or a misspelt name is not enough to get the ticket dismissed. Now, if your name is James Dean, and the citation is for Juan Valdez, you'd have a valid complaint, but it appears your name is Jim Q. Public, and it was written as Jim P. Public. Nope, doesn't wash.

Your other "proof" strikes me as irrelevant. You were charged with speeding, and it appears to have stuck.

On the citation notes he states he was in the median observing northbound in left lane passing traffic "85+ wct 86/70", not sure what "wct" means. but assuming the mentioning of "86/70" is him mentioning the alleged higher speed that he amended it with. that isn't really an issue other than just trying to make matters worse after he realized the Magistrate was going to side with him 100%.

My issue is just how can the Magistrate have complete disregard for me offering to show evidence to disprove the allegations against me in open court and to tell me that it doesn't matter? They then discussed my prior record of around FIVE years ago that i was also not found guilty or innocent of.

Does it not even matter if I was able to prove the officer was lying in open court and on his citation (that he was obviously reading verbatim from as the citation originated in March)? Does it even matter that the name on the certification was a different middle name on my copy and the officer's original that was there in court at the time?

Thanks for your quick reply. I'm dumbfounded by this whole ordeal as it seems they can do anything they wish with complete disregard to the statutes and florida administrative code.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

The Hearing Officer is correct. The wrong middle initial or a misspelt name is not enough to get the ticket dismissed. Now, if your name is James Dean, and the citation is for Juan Valdez, you'd have a valid complaint, but it appears your name is Jim Q. Public, and it was written as Jim P. Public. Nope, doesn't wash.

Your other "proof" strikes me as irrelevant. You were charged with speeding, and it appears to have stuck.

---

How is me trying to disprove the officer's credibility (by proving, or TRYING to prove, he's blatantly lying) not relevant? Isn't that one of the primary tactics used against civil\traffic infractions?

As far as the middle initial I was just starting to point out the flaws in the officer's paperwork before going into the other things I wanted to point out but got shut down on before I could even start. Also, the discrepancy is for the OFFICER'S name on his LIDAR certification, not for my name on the citation.

Quote:

---

As far as the middle initial I was just starting to point out the flaws in the officer's paperwork before going into the other things I wanted to point out but got shut down on before I could even start. Also, the discrepancy is for the OFFICER'S name on his LIDAR certification, not for my name on the citation.

---

Still doesn't matter. Wouldn't matter if EVERYONE'S middle initial was wrong. It's a typo, not a material mistake of fact.

That's okay, what about the rest of what I said? Still immaterial and means nothing?

Well, Traffic Courts aren't really "Courts of Justice." It's unfortunate, but true.

If the officer wanted to amend the citation in open court, well... he can't do that. He can only do that before the hearing. You should have objected. Rule 6.455 says it can be amended BEFORE the hearing commences. Not DURING or in your case, seems like AFTER. That is the job for a prosecutor, and ONLY a prosecutor.

To be honest, the second I read Magistrate, I was not surprised in the least bit.

don't know. As I suggested, procedural gaffs?

Quote:

---

Also, the discrepancy is for the OFFICER'S name on his LIDAR certification, not for my name on the citation.

---

If you wanted to argue the guy representing himself as the officer that signed the cert wasn't actually that guy, then do that but even if you are successful, you would still have to invalidate the cert. If the guy there says "yep, that is me. Somebody entered a type (wherever it was)", the court will accept that he is the right guy because he just testified that regardless what the cert says, he is the guy that signed it. To prove otherwise, you would have to find the person whose name is on the cert and get him to say he signed it. If it was a typo, you obviously cannot do that.



as to the weather: sure, it attacks the cops credibility and powers of observation but what did you do with that? Did you use it to argue there were 2 1959 Ford Fairlanes of the same color (which you were driving one) and he was mistaken as to who he actually clocked?. Did you use it to argue the cop was simply mistaken about some issue that is actually relevant? If not, his incorrect weather observation is not a fact material to the charge so it is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Well, Traffic Courts aren't really "Courts of Justice." It's unfortunate, but true.

If the officer wanted to amend the citation in open court, well... he can't do that. He can only do that before the hearing. You should have objected. Rule 6.455 says it can be amended BEFORE the hearing commences. Not DURING or in your case, seems like AFTER. That is the job for a prosecutor, and ONLY a prosecutor.

---

but a failure to object to the action is seen as acceptance. Even in big boys court you don't get to argue later that something was wrong if you fail to object when appropriate. That is what sets the stage for an appeal.

Quote:

---

That's okay, what about the rest of what I said? Still immaterial and means nothing?

---

Pretty much, yup.

As jk notes, if you use this and argue incorrectly or at the inappropriate time, you're boned.

This is why we tell people to NEVER go to court unrepresented. It almost always ends in tears, elsewise.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Well, Traffic Courts aren't really "Courts of Justice." It's unfortunate, but true.

If the officer wanted to amend the citation in open court, well... he can't do that. He can only do that before the hearing. You should have objected. Rule 6.455 says it can be amended BEFORE the hearing commences. Not DURING or in your case, seems like AFTER. That is the job for a prosecutor, and ONLY a prosecutor.

---

It was immediately before us being sworn in, so I guess technically it was "before the hearing" but it was literally right before our "hearing" because we weren't sworn in yet and the discussion was right in front of me with me at the podium with the officer.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

If you wanted to argue the guy representing himself as the officer that signed the cert wasn't actually that guy, then do that but even if you are successful, you would still have to invalidate the cert. If the guy there says "yep, that is me. Somebody entered a type (wherever it was)", the court will accept that he is the right guy because he just testified that regardless what the cert says, he is the guy that signed it. To prove otherwise, you would have to find the person whose name is on the cert and get him to say he signed it. If it was a typo, you obviously cannot do that.

---

there isn't a signature on the document other than the Chief of the FHP, and Director of FHP. nothing else is signed and those 2 are probably autopenned.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

as to the weather: sure, it attacks the cops credibility and powers of observation but what did you do with that? Did you use it to argue there were 2 1959 Ford Fairlanes of the same color (which you were driving one) and he was mistaken as to who he actually clocked?. Did you use it to argue the cop was simply mistaken about some issue that is actually relevant? If not, his incorrect weather observation is not a fact material to the charge so it is irrelevant.

---

yes, i used it to say, in conjunction with me saying that he was wrong to suspect my vehicle (it happened at 10pm, so it was dark out) as the target vehicle because I was also in a different lane than what he was saying he was watching\clocking oncoming traffic in, that he may have the wrong vehicle and then also mentioned I had a vehicle passing me in the lane he was allegedly clocking. He then went back on the word he just finished saying prior to me mentioning it and said that he was watching the center lane (where I had just said I was after he said he was watching the left lane).

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

but a failure to object to the action is seen as acceptance. Even in big boys court you don't get to argue later that something was wrong if you fail to object when appropriate. That is what sets the stage for an appeal.

---

I had heard from a couple attorneys I spoke with prior to the hearing today that they are allowed to amend the citation up to a day before the hearing, not on the hearing day <1min before the hearing. So I assumed it was acceptable even though it was literally RIGHT before our hearing. I then spoke with an attorney after the hearing that was also there and he said that they are allowed to do that. So whether I objected to it or not seems irrelevant as it would've been allowed anyway and probably would've just pissed off the General Magistrate and fueled the officer to seek further fines\points\whatever he can do. Also, are you leading at an appeal that there is grounds for a true appeal?

I appreciate all your responses, even if they are condescending lol. I have read around on here (and also posted on here before this hearing, about a month or more before this hearing for this case) and see a lot of bozos on here so I can understand the condescending attitude I guess. But I did a LOT of research on this. I have a manilla folder about an inch thick of papers I typed up, found, or photos. None of it was helpful though as the General Magistrate was completely disinterested in what I had to say.

Oh, irrelevant to my case, but a guy went up immediately after me, same speed, same issuing agency, he was accepting guilt though and simply asking for points to be withheld. He and the issuing officer both mentioned and said the defendant had a pregnant woman in the car. The defendant said he was taking her to the hospital as she was 9mo pregnant and the General Magistrate flat out didn't care and ignored his withhold request. He adjudicated him guilty, assessed fines and basically told him to GTFO.