Dates Don't Match On The Ticket

Got a 67mph in a 30mph zone recently.

I WAS moving with traffic and the area he got me in is a transition from 55mph to 30mph.

All that aside, the officer makes his numbers very sloppy and the dates don't make sense.

Say's 'Date Affirmed is - 01/22/2008' (really looks like 0/72/2008)

and the date of offense is '01/27/2008' but he cant give me a ticket on the 22nd for something i did on the 27th

it all really happened on the 22nd, but there are several other number 27s on the ticket (birthday, license plate number, etc) and I am wondering if I make that argument, will it result in a dismissal?

Unlikley. The judge can let the officer ammend the ticket. I have seen the judge dismiss and then the officer simply hands you a new one on the way out the door.

What Lwpat said is true in MOST states. However, if you are in WA, it might make a huge difference. See this thread, for example.

Barry

Im in NY

Im gonna bring it up either way

The judge can not let the officer change the ticket at trial. That would deny your right to prepare a defense for yourself. You can't wait until you are in court and say "oh... this is what I really meant to say on the ticket"!!!

The ticket is defective on its face and you should argue that.

Quote:

---

Quoting 2JIMinCA

---

The judge can not let the officer change the ticket at trial. That would deny your right to prepare a defense for yourself. You can't wait until you are in court and say "oh... this is what I really meant to say on the ticket"!!!

The ticket is defective on its face and you should argue that.

---

That may be true in some places but not everywhere. It may also be true for things like the statute violated, but not necessarily for items like the date. After all, the defendant was there at the time, so he/she should know the date.

Again, I don't know about other states, but in WA the court rules provide:

Quote:

---

Quoting IRLJ 3.1

---

(c) Amendment of Notice. The court may permit a notice of infraction to be amended at any time before judgment if no additional or different infraction is charged, and if substantial rights of the defendant are not thereby prejudiced. A continuance shall be granted if the defendant satisfies the court that the additional time is needed to defend against the amended notice of infraction.

(d) Sufficiency. No notice of infraction shall be deemed insufficient for failure to contain a definite statement of the essential facts constituting the specific infraction which the defendant is alleged to have committed, nor by reason of defects or imperfections which do not tend to prejudice substantial rights of the defendant.

---

So, if the officer puts the wrong statute number, the court should not allow an amendment, however, wrong or missing date, time, weather, or other "essential facts" do NOT constitute "insufficiency" -- at least of the charging document. That's not to say that those missing items might still not lead to a dismissal, but for "lack of evidence" not for a defective charging document.

So, if the OP were in WA, the court would probably allow the amendment (a wrong or missing date does not rise to the level of violating a "substantial right"). But, who knows about NY.

Just my $.02,
Barry