But then.......
Perhaps based on you post some of us thought you came here to (among other things) get help formulating a defense. My bad. Please let us know when you arrive at El Toboso.
Printable View
Not sure what El Toboso has to do with this but no, not help with a defense per say. Please refer to my original post, which asked about the impact of the failure of the state to respond to discovery requests on my likelihood of winning; and then follow-up posts, which pertained to motion to compel. These are more procedural questions rather than defense strategies. My reason to believe that the officer didn't have a good view isn't itself a good defense (since the officer can just assert that he did) - just justification for the discovery.
OK, so to answer your question, you have zero chance for dismissal in TBD due to lack of discovery. I would suggest you plead not guilty and state in TBD that officer could not see you well enough and made a mistake, and explain why (something in his field of vision, the angle of observation, etc). If the officer does NOT submit his statement, that should get you off. If he does, it will not, but that is almost always the case in TBD anyway if the cop responds.
Even in court trial, your chances are slim to none with that. If the officer himself does not use MVARS in trial (which he will not), he does not HAVE TO give it to you. The notes are a different matter, but you can at best get a continuance on that.... not a dismissal. Your only chance, I think, is him not showing up. So you may wanna save yourself some time and effort on orders to compel and such.
Hardly BS. Loiter near a stop sign sometime and watch the cars that approach. Unless it is an extremely busy intersection, you will find that most people tap-and-go. Back when I worked patrol, on those days when I had discretionary time, monitoring a stop sign controlled intersection was a great way to rack up stops and stay busy because you could make a stop within a couple of minutes, easy.
In CA many agencies simply don't write tickets at all these days. They don't have the time or the resources. In some agencies, patrol is prohibited from conducting traffic enforcement unless it's egregious. But, traffic officers (most often motorcycle officers) will write anything and everything as that is what they do.
The unfortunate side effect of this state's diminished resources and lack of enforcement of infractions and misdemeanors (thanks to legislation minimizing the consequences of even lesser crimes) is that the courts are hurting for money. Infractions and misdemeanors fund courts and related programs, and those incomes are greatly reduced. Oops! Now the lost revenue will have to be made up through other funds (i.e. new or re-purposed taxes).
If you are fortunate enough to be living in a place where the police have the discretionary time and lack of activity to actually conduct traffic enforcement and write tickets, consider yourself fortunate.
I agree wholeheartedly. The #2 citation (after speeding) is probably the one for "California" stops with no cross-traffic in sight, a total and utter bullshit with no redeeming value other than collecting revenue for the local jurisdiction. At the same time, almost no one is cited for failure to signal before turning or changing lanes, for example, a ubiquitous and truly dangerous behavior.
Actually, not true. The local jurisdiction (i.e. the city that employs the officer) receives about $7.50 on the citation that costs you $283 And after taking into account the cost for the officer and the vehicle, it's about half that or less) ... and if it's contested, you need a few dozen more to break even. Whereas a $50 parking cite typically results in about $36-$43 for the local jurisdiction with no chance of overtime for the officer if contested. If it were about money, the police would be riding golf carts with chalk sticks. The exception to this is photo-enforced red light cameras which DO tend to be moneymakers for those few cities that still operate them effectively.
But, aside from the CHP, a great many agencies in CA have little time to conduct traffic enforcement absent traffic units assigned to the task. Once upon a time patrol officers could conduct traffic enforcement, but many (most?) medium to large cities in CA no longer engage in traffic enforcement either by general order or default due to a lack of resources.
If, as you state, you are not interested in arguing the case now and just want your discovery, a TBD is the easiest way to get it. Zeljo is correct when he states, "You cannot get the ticket dismissed in TBD due to failure of CHP to provide discovery" because there is no opportunity for you to file a motion to compel at this stage of the case, not for a TBD. In my opinion, a TBD is useful ONLY for the purpose of discovery and locking the officer into specific testimony as to your guilt; rarely will you win your case at this point. A TBD, by design, is meant to provide an easy way to contest your citation, and requesting discovery and a motion to compel isn't simple.
My suggestion is , plead guilty and request traffic school.
Your statement is false, according to California Courts web site (and common sense). A significant and, more importantly, guaranteed amount of money goes to local government, city and county.
But is it false?
cdwjava said the city gets about $7.50 while the judicial website references a split between the city and county. It is possible CDW's town only got "around" $7.50 as part of their split?
No one does this for the money. CHP writes hundreds of thousands of citations each year and doesn't see a penny of citation money in their budget.
CDW never said it was just "his town." Generally though, no, it's not possible. Can you read? Or do elementary math? Or look up "around"?
What a stupid thing to say. Unlike the police in general, CHP has pretty much nothing else to do. They do it because they're told to, and localities and state get the money.