Ticket for Disregarding a Stop Sign in Colorado

[donzoh1]

If the owl is distracting while the citation is being written, it's doubtful that the distraction existed when the offense was observed. If that particular owl, or maybe one of its cousins hooted right before the OP's wheels stopped rotating, distracting the officer's attention at the critical moment, that would be a totally different (and relevant) situation. Whatever distraction existed as the citation was being written likely does not matter.

[Taxing Matters]

Well, here is a quote from op
Remember, OP should not prove the officer was not distraced, when pooled him over, he only should introduce a reasonable doubt, and the cop himself claiming the owl calls were distracting is that reasonable doubt. I am sure that if OP would be able to prove the owl story, and if a judge is fair, he should win.

I disagree. Even if the OP could prove the owl story, all that does is show the officer was distracted a couple of times during the citation writing process, which the officer nevertheless did complete. It does nothing to show that the owl distracted the officer at the critical point where the OP approached the stop sign. Without evidence of that, the owl story is worthless. Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt. And without any evidence to show that distraction occurred at the time the officer was observing the approach to the stop sign there isn't anything to cast reasonable doubt on that. One could always recite a long list of things to the judge that his imagination could dream up that might have happened so that the officer didn't see things clearly,but that’s just speculations. Mere speculation alone does not cut it to establish reasonable doubt.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

I disagree. Even if the OP could prove the owl story, all that does is show the officer was distracted a couple of times during the citation writing process, which the officer nevertheless did complete. It does nothing to show that the owl distracted the officer at the critical point where the OP approached the stop sign. Without evidence of that, the owl story is worthless. Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt.

One flaw in that. Most traffic courts use preponderance of the evidence. Aka 51% likelyhood that you committed the infraction = guilty.

[searcher99]

One flaw in that. Most traffic courts use preponderance of the evidence. Aka 51% likelyhood that you committed the infraction = guilty.

However in Colorado infractions are civil but the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rule 12. Judgment After Final Hearing.

(a) If all elements of a traffic infraction are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the referee shall find the defendant guilty or liable and enter appropriate judgment.

(b) If any element of a traffic infraction is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the referee shall dismiss the charge and enter appropriate judgment, provided, however, that the referee may find the defendant guilty of or liable for a lesser included traffic infraction, if based on the evidence offered, and enter appropriate judgment.

[jk]

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

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.

Maybe the guy was a bird watcher and was taking the opportunity to see a bird he doesn't normally see?

The op is obviously exaggerating certain actions in an attempt to make the cop sound less than credible. Of op really believes what they are saying they can take it to court.

And talk about a lack of noticing detail; cop forgot driver's license, not ticket.

Main my area they stick the license where they can view it while writing. So he got out of the car without picking it up. Not a serious issue at all

[Maria Lyentre]

Maybe the guy was a bird watcher and was taking the opportunity to see a bird he doesn't normally see?

The op is obviously exaggerating certain actions in an attempt to make the cop sound less than credible. Of op really believes what they are saying they can take it to court.

And talk about a lack of noticing detail; cop forgot driver's license, not ticket.

Main my area they stick the license where they can view it while writing. So he got out of the car without picking it up. Not a serious issue at all

The cop is not a bird watcher. I am not myself, but I know quite a few. A bird watcher would have never flashed a light at an owl. Trust me on that.

[ReneeCarpenter]

Your bird watching observation just blew this case wide open. Slam dunk, court is now adjourned.

[jk]

You are simply an idiot reneecarpenter. To register to post such a ridiculous post is.... Well......it's ridiculous.

[BooRennie]

The cop is not a bird watcher. I am not myself, but I know quite a few. A bird watcher would have never flashed a light at an owl. Trust me on that.

I'm a bird watcher. If I heard something up in the trees at night, and had a powerful flashlight, you can be sure I'd sweep the treeline to see what was there. Now, go away, because you are not only clueless, but you don't understand how mental disorders work.

Your bird watching observation just blew this case wide open. Slam dunk, court is now adjourned.

You sully the name you bear.

[Taxing Matters]

Your bird watching observation just blew this case wide open. Slam dunk, court is now adjourned.

I suspect that you are being sarcastic here. So I’ll take this opportunity to point out that sarcasm doesn’t generally come across well in text; you need the sarcastic tone of voice that is missing in text for sarcasm to really work.