Pulled Over for Speeding While in a Gas Station, VC 22349(A)

Quote:

---

Quoting w0lf3h

---

Speeding tickets are only ever about the cop's word against yours. It's playing the game of whether or not you can get the cop to admit he doesn't know or doesn't remember.

If the cop really wants to give you a ticket for the day before on the day after, you can't do anything about it. He said "I saw you here yesterday, and I couldn't catch you." I do think it'd be very cool to be able to ride the speed that he said I was going though. :P

---

Technicalities appear to be the best case to defend against a speeding ticket. That means what the cop says is irrelevant if there is a technicality that allows you to have the ticket dismissed.

As jk pointed out previously and as was pointed out before that, if the citation was not issued in real time, and it apparently was not, there could be an issue of rider identity. If the state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, like with admissions against interest on your part or by the officer saying he saw your face, a reasonable doubt exists. If you wear a full-face helmet routinely, it's going to be hard for the cop to prove the case without admissions.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

...like with admissions against interest on your part...

---

You keep referring to "admissions against interest", so it bears pointing out to you that you are confusing the hearsay exclusion for party admissions with the hearsay exception for statements against interest. Two different things.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

...or by the officer saying he saw your face, a reasonable doubt exists.

---

You believe that if an officer can't see a motorcyclist's face when he sees a speeding motorcycle, but subsequently follows the motorcycle into a gas station and observes the motorcyclist dismount, he can't prove that the motorcyclist who got off of the motorcycle was the same driver who rode it into the gas station? That's a truly fascinating theory... the sort with which the officer, judge, and observers in court would likely enjoy regaling others, "You wouldn't believe the argument I actually heard somebody try to make in court today...."

Sorry, no. The officer's observations would be ample to support conviction. Your incorrect belief that the officer has to see the operator's face while a vehicle is moving having been duly noted, it's actually sufficient to observe the operator dismount or get out of the vehicle, or at the time the vehicle is pulled over.

Why is my last post gone?

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't Mr. K just say that California Traffic Infractions were civil matters? Where did that go? And why doesn't his post indicate it was updated like mine do when I edit them?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You keep referring to "admissions against interest", so it bears pointing out to you that you are confusing the hearsay exclusion for party admissions with the hearsay exception for statements against interest. Two different things.

You believe that if an officer can't see a motorcyclist's face when he sees a speeding motorcycle, but subsequently follows the motorcycle into a gas station and observes the motorcyclist dismount, he can't prove that the motorcyclist who got off of the motorcycle was the same driver who rode it into the gas station? That's a truly fascinating theory... the sort with which the officer, judge, and observers in court would likely enjoy regaling others, "You wouldn't believe the argument I actually heard somebody try to make in court today...."

Sorry, no. The officer's observations would be ample to support conviction. Your incorrect belief that the officer has to see the operator's face while a vehicle is moving having been duly noted, it's actually sufficient to observe the operator dismount or get out of the vehicle, or at the time the vehicle is pulled over.

---

Didn't you read the OP's first post? He clearly indicated the alleged offense was on a day prior to the day he received a citation. Obviously, when an officer pulls over a rider with a helmet on, the rider can't argue I'm not the rider you saw. Wow! Again, the OP never said the cop followed him into the station immediately after the alleged violation.

In addition to the part of your original post that was erroneous (remember, the part you deleted?) your contention about admissions is similarly erroneous. Check the definition on the Cornell Law Website and compare it to my original post on admissions. It fits perfectly.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

Why is my last post gone?

---

Apparently someone on the admin team felt it should not be there.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

Didn't Mr. K just say that California Traffic Infractions were civil matters? Where did that go?

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

And why doesn't his post indicate it was updated like mine do when I edit them?

---

Because you can edit out the updated line and he did?

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Apparently someone on the admin team felt it should not be there.



See above.



Because you can edit out the updated line and he did?

---

I read in his profile that he sometimes makes mistakes and admits when he's wrong. That must be what he meant. Edit the mistake and then delete the post following that pointed out the mistake. Anyone around here work for the government?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, I can't "edit out" the updated line...at least not after an hour or so. His was edited after it had been up overnight. But, I understand, he's one of the biggies around here and it's best he not look like he screwed up.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

Nope, I can't "edit out" the updated line...at least not after an hour or so. His was edited after it had been up overnight. But, I understand, he's one of the biggies around here and it's best he not look like he screwed up.

---

Users cannot edit posts after 1 hour so that means the edit was performed by someone on the admin side. As for the rest, tread carefully. You've already been given one vacation, earned or not.

As I indicated previously, I have come to understand exactly how things work around here. Apparently you too understand that when certain people are challenged, they throw tantrums or whatever. Obviously, I'm not in the protected group. In this exchange, for example, I can see myself banned yet again for current comments. You, on the other hand, have been supportive of the cabal and won't be affected.

I'm done with vacations. Next is retirement.