'No Corpus Delicti' as a Defense to a Ticket

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Arizona


And can u do it even after you have a hearing date.

After getting a court date is when I researched and I found a ton of info here and in other places. Several talk about abatement. More or less you can do 2 things from the sound of it and 80% of the time the judge will do the right thing and dismiss.

1. Show no jurisdiction which many have said that because the tickets in general do not have arraignment hearings anymore it is hard to file pre hearing. Like in AZ you tell a clerk not a judge you want to go to court.

2. No Standing by the state et al the officer. In all cases there must be damage either physical, emotional, financial, or legal (ie rights under law denied). So in all civil traffic cases usually there are no damages even though the officer filed a complaint to that fact.


Now unfortunately I started researching late for 3 tickets [different subjects] in 3 weeks. I had already been to court for one and went to school for the other only now am I learning how to fight or fight back.

Based on this and many other sites I have filed a motion of discovery which was denied, I had asked for an attorney which was denied, and now I’m prepping for court though I would like to get it resolved before.

So does anyone know the who, what, where, when, and why for this process? Or should I move for dismissal during the hearing?


Some of the sites i found:

http://www.articlesbase.com/law-arti...ms-200760.html

http://www.hobbleknot.com/EYR/Abatement.html

http://www.ticketslayer.com/ paid to, I assume send you the forms; besides that’s what the internet is for, lol. Though lots of info there too.

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Arizona


And can u do it even after you have a hearing date.

After getting a court date is when I researched and I found a ton of info here and in other places. Several talk about abatement. More or less you can do 2 things from the sound of it and 80% of the time the judge will do the right thing and dismiss.

1. Show no jurisdiction which many have said that because the tickets in general do not have arraignment hearings anymore it is hard to file pre hearing. Like in AZ you tell a clerk not a judge you want to go to court.

2. No Standing by the state et al the officer. In all cases there must be damage either physical, emotional, financial, or legal (ie rights under law denied). So in all civil traffic cases usually there are no damages even though the officer filed a complaint to that fact.

---

Corpus delicti = Body of the crime;

A crime was committed, the "injury" or "damage" was to the "people". I don't know if you are so so familiar with the charging document of some states, but it is, for example "People v. Jones".

Some else brought up the issue of "standing" not to long ago and cited the Civil rules of procedure, which was incorrect, to start with. He also equated this to a civil action as far as the common meaning of "damage" or "injury".

You can proffer any defense, but for standing or jurisdiction to apply, you need some fancy legal footwork, meaning, more directly, it won't work.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Corpus delicti = Body of the crime;

A crime was committed, the "injury" or "damage" was to the "people". I don't know if you are so so familiar with the charging document of some states, but it is, for example "People v. Jones".

Some else brought up the issue of "standing" not to long ago and cited the Civil rules of procedure, which was incorrect, to start with. He also equated this to a civil action as far as the common meaning of "damage" or "injury".

You can proffer any defense, but for standing or jurisdiction to apply, you need some fancy legal footwork, meaning, more directly, it won't work.

---

And certainly won't be an argument entertained by a judge from someone that is NOT a current member of the bar.

Actually, the judge may find the argument very entertaining. ;)

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

Actually, the judge may find the argument very entertaining. ;)

---

Entertaining, yes... COMPELLING... um, ... well...

And yet people get Traffic Tickets Dismissed.

Besides the one pay site I found more that are free many talk about what to say your day in court. None guarantee dismissal but most say it will be complied with around 80% of the time so something has to be there.

An example was about standing and impeaching the officer with 2 questions:

Did you file a valid cause of action against me?

Followed up by:

How many elements are in a valid cause of action?

At this point the officer being unable to answer [usually] would be shown to be not competent to represent the state and so his testimony would be impeached [includes the citation]. According to some sites at this point with no state representation the citation would be dismissed.

Now I’m no lawyer but IMO I have always had issue with traffic courts and law in general. For example in the county next to mine all the traffic camera traps were removed. The reason why from the man in charge, "These cameras serve no law enforcement purpose at all and are strictly for the generation of revenue and therefore have no purpose being run and maintained by law enforcement whose purpose is to protect and serve not make money." If true for speeding cameras how not so for a person who serves the same function?

Then there is of all areas of law enforcement open to corruption without seeming so is Traffic. I mean an Officer can hand out as many false tickets as he wants and all he has to do is who up for court [time and a half] and say he had seen what he stated in the citation. Unless you happen to have a running video camera in the car on the speedometer how could you ever prove him wrong? You can’t unless you blind them with cosign errors or range ect. But let’s say a motorcycle officer right on the curb facing you and you alone with LIDAR at 100ft it’s just not going to happen. Yet he could very easily to make extra cash pull you over and cite you even if you were not speeding to get that time and a half. Imagine getting 40hrs a week with another 20 or so at time and a half. That would be bank. No different than mail carriers who sign up for the overtime list and work 12 hours a day and their day off. Sure we are supposed to trust police to do the right thing but come on.

I think the real problem is for a Traffic Ticket that no one is willing to take it as far as possible to win or prove a point. Which here and elsewhere people agree is the point of traffic court. Pay us the money – period.

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

And yet people get Traffic Tickets Dismissed.

Besides the one pay site I found more that are free many talk about what to say your day in court. None guarantee dismissal but most say it will be complied with around 80% of the time so something has to be there.

An example was about standing and impeaching the officer with 2 questions:

Did you file a valid cause of action against me?

Followed up by:

How many elements are in a valid cause of action?

---

"Cause of action' is a civil term, the correct legal "words of art" are "probable cause". Probable cause MUST exist to charge a crime, either by arrest or summons/citation.

Elements in a cause of action?? I am perplexed the Q would even be permitted to be answered by a court.

The "elements" of a crime ARE the elements of this so called "cause of action". If I were an officer and this question were posed to me, I would respond "Do you mean what are the elements of the crime?" What is so hard about that to answer??

Quote:

---

At this point the officer being unable to answer [usually] would be shown to be not competent to represent the state and so his testimony would be impeached [includes the citation]. According to some sites at this point with no state representation the citation would be dismissed.

---

These "get out of ticket" websites are a ruse unless they state specific defenses, the above is not one.

Quote:

---

Now I’m no lawyer but IMO I have always had issue with traffic courts and law in general. For example in the county next to mine all the traffic camera traps were removed. The reason why from the man in charge, "These cameras serve no law enforcement purpose at all and are strictly for the generation of revenue and therefore have no purpose being run and maintained by law enforcement whose purpose is to protect and serve not make money." If true for speeding cameras how not so for a person who serves the same function?

---

I live in Ohio and I try to keep up with OSC rulings. A suit was filed in Federal Court over automated traffic cameras. The District court certified a question to the Ohio SC on it. The ruling was, such cameras ARE a reasonable exercise of the police power under Ohio's Home Rule powers for municipalities. Here though if not witnessed by an officer, the punishment is a civil one, not criminal. Although not mentioned in the case, a traffic camera is a so called "silent witness" under the rules of evidence.


http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ro...8-ohio-270.pdf

Quote:

---

]Then there is of all areas of law enforcement open to corruption without seeming so is Traffic. I mean an Officer can hand out as many false tickets as he wants and all he has to do is who up for court [time and a half] and say he had seen what he stated in the citation. Unless you happen to have a running video camera in the car on the speedometer how could you ever prove him wrong? You can’t unless you blind them with cosign errors or range ect. But let’s say a motorcycle officer right on the curb facing you and you alone with LIDAR at 100ft it’s just not going to happen. Yet he could very easily to make extra cash pull you over and cite you even if you were not speeding to get that time and a half. Imagine getting 40hrs a week with another 20 or so at time and a half. That would be bank. No different than mail carriers who sign up for the overtime list and work 12 hours a day and their day off. Sure we are supposed to trust police to do the right thing but come on.

I think the real problem is for a Traffic Ticket that no one is willing to take it as far as possible to win or prove a point. Which here and elsewhere people agree is the point of traffic court. Pay us the money – period.

---

A FALSE charge can be made whether it is a traffic violation or any other, assault, theft, whatever. Crooked cops sooner or later go down, as we saw in St. George, MO last year.

Yes a silent witness by which you have no right of discovery because traffic violations are labeled civil. So you have a "witness" that cannot be properly cross examined such as like many posts here the range were and when it was used ect. Some things you find out in court but many important things you do not or in such a time as to be unable to research.

So if you set aside the camera or radar or lidar what is left?

A defendant said officer said.

How could a judge ever come to a conclusion then?

Bias, The assumption that the officer is telling the truth even though both parties are sworn before the court.

Yet you are told you are to be given a fair hearing?!? lol

Not to mention the judge being a representative of the state is also one of the parties.

Oh and my point of the camera was not if they can or would do it but to what purpose does it serve? The official in the county actually removed all the cameras because as he stated they serve no law enforcement purpose and are for the sole purpose of making money which is not the purpose of any law enforcement agency. I also just read a new story that also quoted the county sheriff who removed them as stating the removal was also due to the fact that he felt they violated a person’s constitutional right to confront their accuser.

I will ask you to do the same as I have asked everyone with the "silver bullet" that prevents a court from prosecuting traffic citations.

Please return after trying your theory in court to let us know how you did.

To date, no one has ever come back to brag about their success. Be the first.

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

Yes a silent witness by which you have no right of discovery because traffic violations are labeled civil. So you have a "witness" that cannot be properly cross examined such as like many posts here the range were and when it was used ect. Some things you find out in court but many important things you do not or in such a time as to be unable to research.

---

Traffic offenses are not civil in every jurisdiction, no!

Quote:

---

Not to mention the judge being a representative of the state is also one of the parties.

Oh and my point of the camera was not if they can or would do it but to what purpose does it serve? The official in the county actually removed all the cameras because as he stated they serve no law enforcement purpose and are for the sole purpose of making money which is not the purpose of any law enforcement agency.

---

There are other reasons, also, to stop speeding, speeding can endanger others lives also, not only the violators.

Quote:

---

I also just read a new story that also quoted the county sheriff who removed them as stating the removal was also due to the fact that he felt they violated a person’s constitutional right to confront their accuser.

---

This is a valid point, and if a person holds to it, I really have no strong argument against it. However, the Confrontation clause of the 6th AM only guarantees cross examination of a witness in a criminal prosecution. IF the penalty is a civil one, as in the case I cited, the right does not exist.

The case I cited does not discuss the Confrontation clause though, so I can not cite from it.

I have never seen where any court has outlawed the use of radar, lidar, etc., as a violation of the confrontation clause, so if a camera is as effective electronically, how are they different?

There are exceptions also to the right to confront a witness, hearsay is at times admissable in court, dying declarations, excited utterances, etc.

Sometimes a court may exclude a child's testimony in open court and videotape it for the trial.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

I have never seen where any court has outlawed the use of radar, lidar, etc., as a violation of the confrontation clause, so if a camera is as effective electronically, how are they different?

---

The main difference is that radar and lidar are SUPPOSEDLY used to verify an officer's visual estimate of your speed. Now, in reality, that's not how they are used -- I've watched several radar traps and know that the officer is TOTALLY relying on the radar reading. When the officer writes it up, though, it ALWAYS reads something like, "I observed the suspect vehicle and visually estimated its speed at 45. I activated my radar unit, which indicated a speed of 47...."

In that case, it is the officer that you can confront in court, while a photo radar cannot be cross-examined, asked about its qualifications, training, etc. I believe that photo radar is only legal in AZ, BTW. WA allows photo radar in school zones, but the photo CANNOT show the driver, and the presumption that the registered owner was driving is overcome by a sworn statement that "it wasn't me".

But, I agree with Cyjeff. I think OP should try this defense and come back and let us know how it worked.

Barry

Not winning is not the same as not being right.

While not exactly civil traffic ticket issues there was a case taken to the Supreme Court on 4th amendment basis. The court basically side stepped the issue which in the end still allowed it. It was about being pulled over and detained by an officer in a civil traffic pull over with no probable cause. The court found that while not exactly following the letter of the law they believed that there was no harm in being pulled over in such cases to enforce non criminal ordinances and statues.

After all how much is there in our laws that were believed to be just fine and ok until someone fought it all the way.

Simple fact is that no one except the really bored or rich would ever appeal or sue the state for a civil traffic violation and not especially to the Supreme Court.

I think the point of the one thing I was reading on with the 2 questions was that of standing. Since most civil actions have a claim of damage be it physical, mental, financial, & conditional then where is the damage in speeding? In thinking on it I have found no damage to persons or property caused by speed and speed alone. Then there is who the damaged party is? Can the damaged party prove harm? Like the suits about wire tapping the judge ruled they had no standing because they could not show they were one of the ones being tapped even though the lists were secret so how could anyone know?

at any rate I have filed a motion to abate though i found that form late and it is likely moot now that I have a court date so we shall see how it goes.

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

While not exactly civil traffic ticket issues there was a case taken to the Supreme Court on 4th amendment basis. The court basically side stepped the issue which in the end still allowed it. It was about being pulled over and detained by an officer in a civil traffic pull over with no probable cause. The court found that while not exactly following the letter of the law they believed that there was no harm in being pulled over in such cases to enforce non criminal ordinances and statues.

---

Can you please supply us with the cite for the case you refer to?

Good luck with your motion,

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

Not winning is not the same as not being right.

While not exactly civil traffic ticket issues there was a case taken to the Supreme Court on 4th amendment basis. The court basically side stepped the issue which in the end still allowed it. It was about being pulled over and detained by an officer in a civil traffic pull over with no probable cause. The court found that while not exactly following the letter of the law they believed that there was no harm in being pulled over in such cases to enforce non criminal ordinances and statues.

---

If such a case exists, and please cite it, a violation of any traffic offense, regardless of the classification, is probable cause to seize (stop) a motor vehicle.

On the issue of "sidestep" the Court has ruled in the past IF they can decide a case on a non constitutional basis, they will.