Ivegotthenuts

iTrader: (21)

At around 1:40 pm I was headed to the city from Oakland. Im on 101 in the far left lane behind a Toyota Prius going 50 mph. I signal and change lanes to the right and I notice a SFPD on a bike. So when I see this cop, my first instinct is to look down at my speedometer to see how fast I was going, and I was going a safe speed. I then see the cop in my rearview, pacing me. So I merge back over to the far left lane and continue going a safe speed. Cop disappears from my rearview and I continue to hop on 280 southbound. I see the bike again, and when I take the Ocean ave exit, he blurps me.

I argued that I was not speeding and that I was behind some slow moving vehicles. He says that I was weaving in and out of traffic, and that I "set off" his radar when I reached 80 mph. He also said he didn't get a reading from his radar gun that I went over 80 mph, he said he was "pacing" me and in order for him to go over 80 mph I had to be doing the same.

So at the end I was cited for no proof of insurance, modified exhaust, and basic speed( going over 80 mph).

So basically, he didn't have proof that I went over 80 mph, which I didn't. It was based on his judgement and "pacing".

Im definately going to contest this in court. Any advice as to what I should say to the Judge???

dorifto88

iTrader: (8)

Good luck but no insurance is going to suck

PikkaGTR

iTrader: (4)

hope they throw out the other stuff since he had no legitimate reason to pull you in the first place

wrx=owned

iTrader: (3)

contest by written declaration not in person... its a hassle for the officer to have to file a report which he often has to do off duty. If the cops doesnt file his report then the case is dismissed (im 2/3). And if the cop does send a report in and the judge finds you guilty you get a new trail (trial de novo). Then you can contest it in person and hope the officer doesn't show.

also mention in the statement that he did not have clear line of sight with many cars obstructing his view while observing your speed

if you do lose the written declaration and the cops shows up for the in person...then the judge is going to believe everything he hears from the cops...granted you will have your chance to speak, but after you will be ignored and found guilty unless you show some doubt in the officer such has having any obstructions in his line of view.

psoper

First - 101 does not go to Oakland, so if you were headed into the city from Oakland you couldn't have been on 101, 80 maybe... but you don't get on 101 until after the civic center exit, at which point you are very much IN the city...

Second, most of that stretch of highway from the Bay Bridge to Candlestick is posted at 50, any faster than that and you are technically speeding, even if you feel it is "safe", he had plenty of reason to pull you over.

Third, driving without Insurance is a big no-no, I seriously hope you are insured and just didn't have the tag with you.

If he can convince the Judge you were going over 80, the Judge might deny you traffic school... I think the best you could reasonably expect would be to get the basic rule violation knocked down to something over the speed limit, of course you'll need to show up in court with your proof of insurance, and hope the judge is having a good day and doesn't feel like making an example of you.

Ivegotthenuts

iTrader: (21)

I do have insurance, I just didn't have the insurance card in the car with me.

When he did have a clear line of sight of my vehicle, I was certain I was going 65 mph and below. Who in their right mind would speed in the presence of a police officer?

He wasn't directly behind me the whole time he claimed he was pacing me, so I'm sure other vehicles had to be obstructing his view.

This is my 3rd time getting pulled over in the last 18 months, so traffic school is out of the question. I've already tried the written declaration on my last ticket, and that didn't work.

Thanks for all the advice, keep them coming.

Selvage

Gah. Gotta hate some SFPD.
Would have been funny if it was my mom. Or someone she knows.

Ivegotthenuts

iTrader: (21)

Well hey, you willing to help a fellow i-club member out?

perry753

iTrader: (2)

you still had no insurance card/exhaust mod, he still had reason to cite you for these though

soggynoodles

iTrader: (50)

wait..whaa?

Ivegotthenuts

iTrader: (21)

Not gonna happen, thought I would try

horsecut54

good luck. go to ticketassassin.com they got some info for you there, but in my experiences it don't matter if you can prove your case, your still going to pay. And modified exhaust isn't illegal unless its over the 95 decibel limit. Good luck, mang

Pactin

iTrader: (12)

actually, even if its under 95 dB modifying your exhaust/emissions is still technically illegal.

silverbullet415

iTrader: (12)

what exhaust do u have

woocabin

iTrader: (13)

hook up an i-clubber!