Ticket for Disregarding a Stop Sign in Colorado

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Colorado

I was pulled over for "disregarding a stop sign" in my neighborhood. I pass through this area all the time and I always stop so I was stunned to find out that was the reason I was being pulled over. At any rate, I'm wondering if there is any good argument or way to fight this in court, or if my only option is to show up on my court date and hope the cop had better plans?

I would like to note that he was pretty clearly pulling cars over to fill a quota, when I was going to dinner when I was pulled over and I saw another car pulled over in the same location when I came back home. Additionally, it almost seemed as if the cop had taken something or might have been loopy from exhaustion or something. When he approached my car to bring my ticket, instead of addressing me, he was shining is flashlight into the treeline and staring intently. I waited for a moment, but he continued and said nothing to me. He then told me he heard an owl and he was looking for it. He then ran back to his car, it turns out he forgot to bring my license back to me. When he finally handed me the citation and gave me the normal speech this is what you did, this is your court date, etc. he stopped at least 2 or 3 times to listen for the owl and tell me how distracting it was. Very disconcerting that this man is "protecting" our streets.

Any advice is appreciated, if not, I guess I will just show up on my court date and hope for the best.

Even if you usually stop at that stop sign it does not mean you always do. It is no defense to your ticket to say “I always stopped for this stop sign in the past so I must have done so this time.” Moreover, a lot of people make rolling stops at stop signs rather than a complete stop and think they complied with law. You might have done just that.

You don’t know that the officer was pursuing some kind of quota. You are simply assuming it because he was making a number of stops that evening. It may be that there were no more serious calls for him that night and he noticed a number of traffic violations and went after them. It’s not hard to catch traffic violators; people violate traffic laws all the time. In any event, even if he was going after a quota that is no defense in Colorado either.

The thing with the owl also gives you no defense. A good cop notices everything that goes on around him/her. That’s how they catch criminals — they notice the unusual activity around them. Checking unusual sounds in the woods that might be an owl or might be something more suspicious is something that a cop might well do. In any case, the hooting of the owl while he was outside his car does not logically infer that the officer did not clearly see how you approached that stop sign.

The only thing that matters if you contest this matter in court is whether you did, in fact, stop at the stop sign. The officer will testify that you did not. Unless you have anything convincing to either show that you did or to impeach the officer’s credibility you will likely be convicted on the charge. If you want to appear and contest the charge it is possible that the prosecutor will offer to you a deal to plea guilty to some charge with fewer points or lower fine. That practice varies from one prosecutor’s office to another in Colorado. The officer will likely appear (he gets paid for it, after all), but if the officer does not show it is not an automatic dismissal of the charge. The court might continue the case once to another date. But you could ask for the dismissal in that circumstance and see what the court does.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

You don’t know that the officer was pursuing some kind of quota. You are simply assuming it because he was making a number of stops that evening. It may be that there were no more serious calls for him that night and he noticed a number of traffic violations and went after them. It’s not hard to catch traffic violators; people violate traffic laws all the time. In any event, even if he was going after a quota that is no defense in Colorado either.

---

It's also possible that it was targeted enforcement based on complaints from the community about people running the signs.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

The thing with the owl also gives you no defense. A good cop notices everything that goes on around him/her. That’s how they catch criminals — they notice the unusual activity around them. Checking unusual sounds in the woods that might be an owl or might be something more suspicious is something that a cop might well do.

---

You're funny. Maybe he thought it was a Sioux warrior signal before an attack?

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

Unless you have anything convincing to either show that you did or to impeach the officer’s credibility you will likely be convicted on the charge.

---

Listening for owls for long moments and telling strangers about it certainly doesn't boost his credibility. Neither does forgetting the ticket when re-approaching the defendant's vehicle, especially if that is the sole reason why he's approaching the car in the first place. It's kind of like forgetting to put on shoes before walking out of your house.

The officer didn't forget the ticket, he forgot OP's license. Which is something I'm willing to bet almost every officer in the country has done at some time in their career, to include forgetting the registration or proof of insurance.

Seriously now, stop sign tickets are hard to defend. If the cop shows, pretty much the only thing you can do is ask him of his vantage point. If he was in front of you or behind you, as opposed to on your side, he would have a less than perfect angle to see whether you made a complete stop or not. You can argue in your closing statement to that effect. DO NOT ask the officer anything like "Because you were behind me, are you sure you saw me not make a complete stop?" He will, of course, say that he is. Just ask him where he was, and make your point to the judge, not officer.

Quote:

---

Quoting thewiseone

---

If he was in front of you or behind you, as opposed to on your side, he would have a less than perfect angle to see whether you made a complete stop or not.

---

He might have a less than perfect view to see if the stop was made prior to or at the line of the stop sign, but he could certainly notice if the car failed to come to a complete stop at all. If I am right behind you I can certainly easily see if you don't come to a complete stop. If the issue was instead that the driver stopped but it was past the line where the stop should be made then the line of attack you suggest would be more useful.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

If I am right behind you I can certainly easily see if you don't come to a complete stop.

---

If he was right behind, of course, there is no defense. However, if he was, say, 100-200 feet behind or in front, it may be very hard to distinguish between a slow rolling stop and a full stop. Not so if he is the same distance away, but on your side. This is basic physics... and common sense. This is also why they usually do take a position to the drivers' side when enforcing a stop sign. But maybe not this time.

The concept of convincing a judge that an officer who has testified that he observed the defendant's vehicle, and saw that it failed to come to a complete stop before going through a stop sign, is cute. But it's an exceptionally weak argument to attempt in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting thewiseone

---

If he was right behind, of course, there is no defense. However, if he was, say, 100-200 feet behind or in front, it may be very hard to distinguish between a slow rolling stop and a full stop. Not so if he is the same distance away, but on your side. This is basic physics... and common sense. This is also why they usually do take a position to the drivers' side when enforcing a stop sign. But maybe not this time.

---

Trying to convince the court that the cop could not have seen what he testified he saw based on this is not likely a winner; if it’s all you’ve got you can try it, but I agree with Mr. Knowitall that it is pretty weak. One would, at a minimum, I think, need expert testimony about how accurately one might perceive a stop in such a circumstance. If you are going to go down that road, you’d need to be prepared to spend a lot more money on the defense of this case — quite a bit more than than the fine would be — and even then there is no guarantee the court will buy it.