ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

From experience, your statement about a traffic signal violation, BS this one doesn't get reduced. As a matter of fact they raised the bail on this offense. Why didn't you plea "no contest". If you plea guilty you won't even be offered traffic school. Was your ticket late? If you fail to pay the bail the amount goes up and your license can be suspended until bail is paid. Never plea guilty.

kYLEMtnCRUZr

iTrader: (6)

Dont get a lawyer without calling him on KGO, he IS a lawyer and tells people if they should waste their time or money on one, and if they even have a case.

you into those powerful chicks huh?

joltdudeuc

iTrader: (6)

For the record, most commissioners (they are not judges in traffic court) are much nicer...

I have 5 speeding tickets:

1- Paid fee and went to traffic school
2- Challenged and successfully won by written declaration
2- Asked for fine reduction (reduction of about 50%) and took traffic school (both times granted by commissioners)

-Gagan

resident smurf

iTrader: (3)

You can motion to get a different judge (once), actually. There is legal precedent for this... I have an example of one of these motions but I don't remember where it is. I'll try to find it.

jondl

iTrader: (19)

Isn't that how the system works though? You get caught for doing something, you get a chance to prove your 'innocence' or show that you're remorseful and that the judgement that you're facing isn't one that will help you become a better law abiding citizen.

I also don't believe the judge to be a racist.. especially a SAN JOSE judge. I think she would have been found out by now.

And on a side note, I've contested a ticket before and actually won (lost but got my ticket lowered). I had a $450 ticket and got it down to $125 (fees). Thinking back, all I really thought was, what is the worse that can happen? The judge will either accept my plea or disregard it. I would've been pissed if instead, got my ticket increased and lost my license for 30 days because I tried to use the justice system for the first time.

ucbsti

iTrader: (9)

obviously racist

*rolls eyes*

fryrice

iTrader: (3)

I got a speeding ticket when i was 18... I was doing 85 on a 65. They gave me traffic school and i pay 114.

Maybe the judge was provoke from him asking too many questions?

musashi

iTrader: (1)

Ya know, its unfortunate to see things like this happen, but you have to look at this from an objective standpoint. I don't know how you presented yourself, but were you there in a suit and tie and on your best behavior the entire time? Even while you are waiting, you are being watched, and if you sit there conveying the attitude that 'this is bull****' you're going to get nailed. There is no way for anyone on here to know what rationale is behind the judge's decision, but you must have done something to annoy the judge. They don't typically arbitrarily raise fines and increase punishment when people show the proper respect. It sounds to me like the judge is simply trying to instill into you some respect for the law. And, judging from the quote below her decision was not quite enough.

Just remember: you get caught driving with a suspended license you're going to pay an even larger fine. I apologize if this post is harsh, but it appears as though you still have not quite learned your lesson. Am I wrong?

You can be quick to play the race card, but from the previous posts, it looks like you're displacing your own perceptions.

nkghost

iTrader: (6)

Declarations do not always work.

I've had 1 ticket, fought it through declaration, Originally I was offered traffic school and just pay the fine.

I ended up losing my case (even though the cop had paced me and had no reliable proof that showed I was speeding)

In the end it took them 6 months to even handle the stuff and get me into court, I paid a $295.00 fine, lost traffic school, and he decided to suspend my license for 30 days...

I got my license restricted so I could commute to work and school, I go back in to have it lifted and he RE-SUSPENDS it.

Needless to say, I got pulled over in June 2007, and this **** will all be done February 25, 2008 (I hope)


Now for the ranter, you could request a trial de nova (sp) which will allow you to plead your case with another judge. I would then request a restricted license so that you can commute to work. When you do this, bring a Itinerary from your employer (work schedule with a company letterhead SIGNED in blue ink from your employer -- black ink can make the judge believe it's a copy, I know this from experience)

If you are enrolled in school, bring a new semester printout of your class schedule. I'd maybe try to put them on the same page having the work schedule on the left, school schedule on the right so it's easier for the judge to read and go over.

If you have any identification from work with your picture bring that, if not, bring a paystub or two proving employment.

You need to also print out your route to work through public transportation if that's going to be a problem. For me, I have a 30 minute driving commute and I work till 11pm. Public transportation would take 2.5hrs to get to work and no busses/part after 11pm.

If you can get another judge, re-request traffic school, and to have them post the bail back to the original fee. There's no reason as to why this Judge would increase your bail, deny traffic school on a first offense (I've had 1 ticket and they revokde traffic school though) and then suspend your license (as they did for me too)

I'm also 18, white, and I dressed professionally and addressed the judge as your honor.

This judge basically used you as as a guinea pig to show the other people of that age group what will happen if they speed.

Drive slower my friend, it's easier for people to see you and the car

musashi

iTrader: (1)

good advice above. You can still request traffic school. The seminal case on this point is:

People v. Wozniak (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 43 , 243 Cal.Rptr. 686

[Crim. A. No. 25132. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles. December 15, 1987.]

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC N. WOZNIAK, Defendant and Appellant

(Opinion by Soven, J., with Cooperman, P. J., and Newman, J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

Eric N. Wozniak, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Ira Reiner, District Attorney, Arnold T. Guminski and Martha E. Bellinger, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SOVEN, J.

Defendant was convicted of speeding in violation of Vehicle Code section 22350. The officer testified that defendant was driving 52 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. After the officer and defendant testified, defendant asked to attend traffic school.

The statement on appeal states: "The Court then informed the defendant that it was not possible to attend traffic school after receiving a trial. The Judges had adapted [sic] the policy that traffic school is available before trial as an alternative to trial."

[1] Vehicle Code section 42005, subdivision (b), provides that "[i]n lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense, and with the consent of the defendant, or after conviction of a traffic offense, the court may order any person issued a notice to appear for a traffic violation to attend a traffic violator school ...." (Italics added.)

Section 42005, by its terms, envisions the possibility of traffic school either before or after conviction. fn. 1 Moreover, independent of the particular [197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 45] language of section 42005, this court held in People v. Enochs (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d Supp. 42, 43-44 [133 Cal.Rptr. 363], that a court's discretion to grant or deny a request for traffic violator school did not encompass a blanket refusal to permit traffic school to all defendants who requested traffic school after trial: "To grant or refuse a request for traffic school on such an arbitrary basis is a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. Such discretion must be 'governed by legal rules to do justice according to law.' [Citations.] A decision based on the order in which a defendant made his requests is not one grounded in 'legal rules to do justice according to law.'

"The trial judge has the power to order defendant to attend traffic school. If the trial judge believes that a defendant's circumstances indicate that a defendant would benefit from attending school, such attendance should be authorized. The question of such imposition should not be affected by the order in which plea, explanation and request (for school) are presented. To decide on defendant's entitlement to traffic school on the basis of the order of presentation rather than the facts of the case is capricious and arbitrary."

In summary, both the present language of Vehicle Code section 42005 and People v. Enochs, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d Supp. 42, decided more than 11 years ago, require trial courts to consider the merits of a defendant's request for traffic violator school whether that request is made before or after conviction. The trial court in this case abused its discretion in relying on a court policy to deny any defendant permission to attend traffic violator school after conviction.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to set the matter for a hearing to consider and decide defendant's request for traffic violator school consistent with the views expressed in Enochs and in this opinion.

Cooperman, P. J., and Newman, J., concurred.

*FN 1. Section 42005, as enacted in 1968, provided that the "court may order any person convicted of a traffic violation to attend a school for traffic violators ...." (Stats. 1968, ch. 1192, § 21, p. 2265.) This portion of section 42005 remained in effect until 1984. (See Stats. 1975, ch. 844, § 3, p. 1910.) In 1984, subdivision (a) of section 42005 was amended to provide for traffic violator school "[i]n lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense, and with the consent of the defendant ...." (Stats. 1984, ch. 1037, § 5, pp. 3596-3597.) The provision for traffic school after conviction was added in 1985. (Stats. 1985, ch. 396, § 23.)

[End of Volume 197 Cal.App.3d]

VRT MBasile

iTrader: (17)

I was not assuming he didnt have the option of traffic school due to the nature of the fine, I was assuming he didnt have the option of traffic school because he said so which was why he went to court in the first place.

I think he probably pissed off the judge by asking her reasoning for not allowing traffic school. That question can be taken as challenging her authority (whether or not that's how he meant it), which would **** off any authority figure. I think trying to have the rules broken for you because you're you also pissed off judges.

Lorry

I'm curious about your statement: "I ended up losing my case (even though the cop had paced me and had no reliable proof that showed I was speeding) " . I thought pacing was considered adequate as proof? I got paced at 75 on 280 - which I was doing. I was ok for traffic school though so no big deal.

Good post - I think you are right about the OP being made an example. You only have to look at the readship on this forum alone to see how fast the word spreads.

xhengmanx

iTrader: (57)

not trying to break any law or rules. i just asked if i could take traffic school bcause itWAS my first movin violations. i did not demand that i should be abl to go. i will be goin into the court tommorw to tak to a clerk for a rehearing of my actions. btwi did admit guilt but wanted to take traffic school which everone is allowed unless they have gone there within 18 months which in my case i was still able to go but denid with nno explanation

VRT MBasile

iTrader: (17)

you said that traffic school was not on your list of options you got in the mail though, meaning for some reason traffic school was not an option

Spoolin415

iTrader: (4)

Didn't know that factoid about SCC. I pled guilty with explanation to one of mine years back and asked for traffic school if nothing could be done to reduce the fine, I got it.

TBWD is good not because you have a greater chance of the judge believing you over the citing officer, but cops get paid overtime to go to court. They don't get jack for extra paperwork and a lot of times you'll luck out when they don't respond. Case dismissed.