Disobedience of Traffic Controls on Private Property

[Taxing Matters]

The officer can't know, much less prove, that Denise drove into the gas station "to avoid an official traffic control device." This is because people can't read other people's minds beyond a reasonable doubt. This is very different from, say, whether she made a complete stop at a stop sign, or whether she was speeding. As long as the O/P can testify under oath to another plausible reason (which she did give), the charge should be dismissed. Even in traffic court.

You assume that the court will automatically believe the defendant’s testimony. That’s not a good assumption to make. The court evaluates all the evidence presented and will decide from what is presented whether he or she believes the defendant’s testimony is credible. If the court doesn’t believe the defendant’s story, the defendant will still lose. Where a person leaves the road and by all appearances cuts through a gas station to avoid waiting at a red light, a self serving statement that the driver intended to do something else isn't likely to be very persuasive. If, however, the driver can present some other evidence in addition to simply his/her self serving statement to back it, his/her chances to win acquittal go up.

[hr for me]

It's illegal in parts of Texas (or it was when DH got a ticket for doing exactly this!)

[Taxing Matters]

Yes, the court will look at the officer's testimony, and at the defendant's, and will rule which one is more credible. In circumstances as described, it should be the defendant's....The point is, the defendant has a good shot in defeating this and she should definitely try it.

You can’t know that the OP would have a “good shot” at winning without having actually heard the testimony and whatever other evidence is presented. Does the OP have a shot a winning? It’s possible. But how likely it is that the judge will accept the OPs version of things cannot be guessed at without at least hearing the testimony that the judge hears. For example, testimony by the defendant that simply amounts to "it wasn't my intent to avoid the traffic light" is not likely to be given much credence. It is self-serving and doesn't help much to dispel the appearance given by the actions the OP took in driving through the gas station without even stopping.

[zeljo]

She has already stated her testimony here: "I informed him (officer) that I didnt cut through the gas station, I turned in the gas station to get air but once I did saw the out of order sign on the air tank and kept going." No ifs, ands or buts there.

[sniper]

She has already stated her testimony here: "I informed him (officer) that I didnt cut through the gas station, I turned in the gas station to get air but once I did saw the out of order sign on the air tank and kept going." No ifs, ands or buts there.

What if the officer went over to the gas station after the citation was issued and discovered the air machine was in proper working order? You don't know the other side of the story, only what is presented by a biased party.

[PayrolGuy]

Or the officer simply said "She drove through the lot without pausing."

[Taxing Matters]

She has already stated her testimony here: "I informed him (officer) that I didnt cut through the gas station, I turned in the gas station to get air but once I did saw the out of order sign on the air tank and kept going." No ifs, ands or buts there.

That still does not tell you how her testimony will be viewed by the judge in light of all the evidence presented. The court may not find the OP credible for one reason or another. It would really help if the OP can present some kind of independent evidence that the air was actually out of order (or at least that there was in fact a sign to that effect there).

[Brian57]

Wow, the pro-prosecution clique has this girl fighting another hopeless case and she hasn't even testified yet.

You can bet that both the cop and the OP would be just as 'biased' in the courtroom. They both have an equal desire to win. Also, the cop cannot know the quickness and accuracy of a person's eyesight and their reaction time.

IMO, if the cop did not do his due diligence and go back to the air pump and verify the OP's story, he deserves to lose. But then what if he did go back after the fact and it was indeed there? What then?

[flyingron]

Is it possible for you to ever state an opinion without resorting to ad hominem attacks on the other posters? Whether or not your opinion is justified, let it stand on it's own merits without denigrating people.

While the cop may indeed be biased, the simple fact is THE LAW assumes he isn't. There's no obligation for him to do any "due diligence" to corroborate the defense's excuses for the apparent violation. All he needs is probable cause that the violation occurs and when someone scoots through a corner property when the light is red, that's all he needs to cite. To win, may be another story. If the defense can show a plausible story that indeed the facility the defendant wanted wansn't available, I bet it would be persuasive. However, "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean beyond any imagined situation the defense can invent.

Furhter, once again your California-centricness is also showing. Illinois traffic citations do not have the same burden of proof as they do in California. Most of them (like the one here) only need to meet the preponderance of the evidence test, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Mr. Knowitall]

He's a troll.

Illinois traffic citations do not have the same burden of proof as they do in California. Most of them (like the one here) only need to meet the preponderance of the evidence test, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Illinois may impose different burdens of proof for ordinance violations vs. charges made under state statutes.

But burden of proof is something of a distraction. Criminal defendants are convicted every day despite the only evidence against them being their word against the officer's or the victim's. Courts don't have to assume that somebody is telling the truth merely because the standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence", let alone acquit every defendant in a "he said, she said" case.