No Turn on Red Ticket

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

I often come to this board to check things out, this is my first actual post.

I am a licensed attorney in the State of Michigan, however I am currently employed in a different capacity.

Anyway, today after my lunch break, I came up to a light and it was green, I made a right hand turn. A police officer was camping out at a car dealership driveway about 100 yards on the street I turned on to. I know for a fact that the light was green when I turned. He pulled me over and said I turned on the red. From where his car was positioned there is no possible way he could have seen my light, he said the light on the other side was green. I didn't admit anything - the light was green! The jackass then proceeded to question me about why I was in the area and threatened to call my insurance company because I didn't have my POI in the car (my tabs expire this week and I made a copy of my POI and left it in the office). He wrote me a ticket for no POI, which I understand - I didn't have it on me, but whatever - what really ticks me off is that he wrote me the no turn on red ticket when it wasn't red! He was 100 yards from the intersection, it was cloudy out, and he never even saw my light.

I do not want the points on my license, I'm sure if I go talk to the prosecutor it can be dropped to impeded, but I don't even want to pay the fine for that when I didn't do anything wrong.

I know the standard is preponderance of the evidence - if it's just my word v. the cop's word, am I going to automatically lose? He has no proof that I turned on red at all besides what he says.

ask him to testify. seems he said he saw the OTHER light. not your light. ask him if lights ever malfuntion. then ask if he saw your light. then ask how he can say you ran a red if he could not see it his own self. just beacuse his was green does not mean yours was red. he just assumed that if he could not see it. did you go park where he was parked and see if he could see BOTH lights? take a photo.

Quote:

---

Quoting THEAMAZINGCHAN

---

ask him to testify. seems he said he saw the OTHER light. not your light. ask him if lights ever malfuntion. then ask if he saw your light. then ask how he can say you ran a red if he could not see it his own self. just beacuse his was green does not mean yours was red. he just assumed that if he could not see it. did you go park where he was parked and see if he could see BOTH lights? take a photo.

---

Great tips, I was going to get a photo after work but he was still camping out in the same spot and I didn't want a confrontation.

He even explained his reasoning was because the other light was green, not to mention this is a somewhat complicated intersection.

I just hope I don't put a bunch of work and time in this and get shafted because "that's what the cop said."

Do you know anything about admissibility of prior traffic tickets? I'd assume they aren't relevant, but I'm not very familiar with how these hearings on tickets go.

there are great people here that will come by in time and help you more.
:) work on the the other stuff in the meantime. its a good board here

It's difficult for one person to have the timing all the lights in the intersection down if they operate on different timers. Say, there's a right turn arrow when the opposing side gets to go straight or something.

You're an attorney. Put him on the stand and grill him about the sequence of these lights. But, also take a friend or two with you and figure out what sequence the lights actually at that time of the day, and on that day of the week.

If that ticket is dismissed, make a motion to have the NPOI ticket dismissed too for want of cause. After all, if the first ticket is dismissed because the officer can't reasonably have known what that other light is doing, then there's a no probable cause before the court in in the first place for the secondary infraction, is there?

Do you wish to argue that the light was defective, or that the officer is not telling the truth? If it's the former, you need to be sure that a report of the assumed defect was made, and should try to get maintenance records. Expect the court to be skeptical that a traffic light is displaying green lights for perpendicular streets without a whole lot of accidents occurring as a result. You're a lawyer, so you should know (or be able to figure out) how FOIA works.

If it's the latter, it reduces to a swearing contest and officers usually win swearing contests in traffic court (or criminal court). ashman165 seems to be suggesting that you may be able to argue that the light is confusing - that you may have had a green light to proceed forward, but that there might have been a turn light for some drivers on the cross-street. It's certainly worth investigating anything like that, which may have confused the officer.

If your ticket for no proof of insurance will be dismissed upon your documenting to the court that you were properly insured, document that you were insured and get the dismissal. If that option is available, check with the court about whether you have to go in person - some courts will even accept proof of insurance by fax - but if you don't go in person you need to confirm that your proof of insurance is received by the court and be prepared to follow-up in person at the courthouse if necessary.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

ashman165 seems to be suggesting that you may be able to argue that the light is confusing - that you may have had a green light to proceed forward, but that there might have been a turn light for some drivers on the cross-street. It's certainly worth investigating anything like that, which may have confused the officer.

If your ticket for no proof of insurance will be dismissed upon your documenting to the court that you were properly insured, document that you were insured and get the dismissal. If that option is available, check with the court about whether you have to go in person - some courts will even accept proof of insurance by fax - but if you don't go in person you need to confirm that your proof of insurance is received by the court and be prepared to follow-up in person at the courthouse if necessary.

---

Yup, that's what I'm saying. I don't know how this intersection is oriented, but we have some rather goofy looking ones in my area. So, I was kind thinking about those when I wrote that.

Where I live, we have that option with the insurance thing as well, but there's not-so-nominal fee people have to pay for "administrative" costs for the insurance clearing up thing. But if you can beat the first ticket on its merits, and consequently the second as a result of the first, then there's no fee associated with it.

no one said the light was defective and no one said the officer was lying.
the problem is that he is assuming and guessing thats all.
no "swear wars" need be developed for this.

op states the police issued the ticket NOT because the officer saw him go through a red. But simply because the light the officer could see was green.
therefore the officer is GUESSING that the op ran a red.

why would you need maint records for that?

officer did you see me run a red light?
answer
"no but i thought you did beacuse..."

thank you officer.

your honor the officer just stated that he could not and did not see my light, only his.
therefore his citation is based on assumption and should be dismissed
he cannot prove the light was red. so unless HE can prove the light was red
i am innocent

the burden of proof is on the officer isn't that correct?
the defendant doesn't need to prove the light to be defective when the officer cant even see it. the police would need to prove that no traffic light has ever been out of sync. and that would be his labors and foia burden.

is this not true?

this isn't even a visual estimate of speed or anything "guess worthy"
its cut and dry "how do you know beyond any doubt that simply because the opposite light was green that the opposing light was red?"
just guessing? oh OK:rolleyes:

With no evidence of a defect in the light, if the light was green in one direction you can expect the court to accept that it was red in the other direction. This is a civil infraction hearing. The officer need only prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, and a court should not be expected to regard the astronomically small chance that a traffic light was displaying green lights for traffic on both cross streets as having any appreciable evidentiary weight.

Redirect, Mr DA? (Ok, so it's like not that formal in traffic court, but I don't get to be in character often.)

Yes, Judge.

Officer, what, if any, information did you have at the time of the incident which led you to determine his light was red?

After having done a study of this traffic controled intersection's lights, my office determine there is a pattern and timing to the light such that . . .

Just because someone can't see some particular thing doesn't mean that it can't be proven in other ways. As for me, I'd like to know definitely if there is a quirk with the timing on those lights at that intersection.

Many cases are proven by mathematics and logic as opposed to direct observation. I'd hate to be on the bad side of that when it's simple enough to determine beforehand.

If the driver presents evidence that the light is defective or may have confused the officer, the officer should certainly be questioned about that defense. But that wasn't what my post was about.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

If the driver presents evidence that the light is defective or may have confused the officer, the officer should certainly be questioned about that defense. But that wasn't what my post was about.

---

I think we were typing at the same time and you just happened to have posted first. I was responding to the poster just above you. Sorry for the confusion. :eek:

No problem - and I am also sorry for the confusion.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

No problem - and I am also sorry for the confusion.

---

Well, I guess that's one downside of people being able to all type at once and post when they want. This doesn't happen on the phone!

Maybe if you added a feature that said "Aaron is typing right now" or "frank is typing right now" it'd work . . .actually that sounds like work. I'd skip it.

Now I have to actually go back and read what you managed to sneak in just above my post. :wallbang: