"Using a cellphone while driving" infraction. (California)

[Bill Brasky]

Theres a total on the bottom of the ticket.  It adds up like a car repair bill. 

I can guarantee you the cop totaled it up, because you can just write a check and mail the whole thing in, and be done with it - as has been explained.  Which is what they want you to do. 

Also, the courthouse is not open the hours as advertised.  It'll be open roughly a half hour after the opening time, then they'll break around ten, then they'll go to lunch around 11:30, be back around 12:45, afternoon break around 2, and leave at 3:45-4:00ish

You have a five minute window of opportunity in the morning, and one in the mid-afternoon. 

Just pay the fuckin' ticket by mail, you're not gonna get off it. 

Not in California.  Here they might send you that in the mail, but otherwise you have to go to court to find out the price.

I'd wait for the mail then, and return payment by mail, too. 

These are the sorts of questions you're supposed to ask the cop.  Cops are people, albeit dickish ones for choosing that profession - they'll answer your questions.  Now he's gotta drive all over creation figuring out the system. 

[Diogenes The Cynic]

How much do you hate that ticket?

If youre angry enough about it, you could simple tell them you have no money, and arrange jail time for yourself in lieu of the ticket.

[mikehz]

Maybe you should send them an IOU, like the state is doing to people it owes money to.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Maybe you should send them an IOU, like the state is doing to people it owes money to.

That's brilliant!! Especially if you could find the form that they use.

[KDus]

I'm in California and I got one of these tickets and was told that although the ticket says I have a month to pay, the officer has up to a year to file the citation. When the officer gets around to filing the ticket a "courtesy notice" will be sent with my new deadline.

I dealt with it by writing them letters asking various constitutional questions, or whatever other kinds of asinine questions I could think of. Just to waist their time. With each letter they gave me an extension, and it was 6 months before I ended up paying anything.

There should be a phone number and a website address on the ticket where you can check the status of the citation, or even pay it online, but it sounds like you're beyond that.

I'm in California also. If you're close enough to me, and you want some moral support, or a partner of some kind it whatever kind of activism you're interested in maybe I can make it to your trial.

I've heard these horror stories from EVERYONE that has tried something other than mailing a check, in CA. One of my $100 tickets became $750 after a trial. My boss spent a year dealing with a ticket that never got filed. Then, the clerk told him it was his responsibility to contact the officer that wrote it. From what I've seen, you have a %50/%50 of getting out of the ticket. In CA, the cop has to show up to the trial for prosecution to proceed. Then, they'll charge you a processing fee; anyway.
Of course, it is the "judge" doing the prosecuting....

[N0Lif3]

Update:

Today is the day that I was scheduled to go to court.

I got into the court room and was seated among about two dozen other people so were here with their infraction dispute. Admittedly, I showed up about a minute late and as such I missed out when my name was called for roll. For being late, I was entered as last in the queue. The sherriff who had pulled me over was there.

They proceeded to play an audio recording with advice toward different traffic violations and explained what pleading "guilty," "not guilty," or "no contest" meant. After this, the woman commissioner playing the role of judge walked into the room and took her seat.

Each person would be called up to the podium. She, the commissioner, would tell you the law you violated, then often jokingly ridicule each person, and ask you what you plead. I found her joking demeanor to be offensive and rather morbid. Like one person who on two separate days played loud music while driving, "well, you shouldn't play your music so loud," and went on to making him pay $100 when he pled guilty. I guess I should be thankful that she wasn't a Judge Judy-shouting bitch-on-wheels.

I noticed early on the tactic she was using, everybody who pled guilty or no contest received a reduction to their fine. I imagine that this is an incentive so that you'll just give up. What I found really strange is that if you chose "not guilty" that they wouldn't dispute it on that day. They reschedule you to come back within the next 45 days to, I assume, have a REAL court case. Don't I have the right to a speedy trial? This must be some kind of loop hole.

Finally, I was called up. She went through the process and asked me what I pled. I told her "you really have me in a bind.." She physically turned around to see if I was talking to somebody behind her. She questioned my statement, making it clear that it is completely my fault that I'm in this predicament, as if it isn't the state for enforcing such shitty laws. I explained that I've had come here several times to settle this, that it has been very costly. I also explained that I'm a poor college student and though I wish to plead not guilty and fight this, that it is all becoming far too troublesome for me. She showed no empathy toward me and sternly came to the conclusion that basically I wanted to plead no contest, and that's what I did. She reduced my original $127 down to $100 even. On my way out of the court room, the sherriff who had pulled me over said in a playful tone "You go pay your fine now." I didn't want to make trouble, so I just walked away pathetically and only acknowledged him with an agitated monotone "yeah..."

If you get a ticket and you want fight it, this is how it'll work for you in California:

-After two weeks of having received the ticket, you have to go down to your local court house, wait in line, and schedule a court date. (in my case, the court date was a little over two weeks later)
-You come back on the scheduled court date, have to sit through a bunch of bull crap, and then you tell the judge/commissioner that you plead not guilty.
-You'll receive yet another court case. If you waved waiting time (or something like that), it'll be within 45 days.
-You, presumably, get your real court case. I can't tell you the specifics here. I imagine that even if you win they'll take some money from you just for their trouble.

It's a bunch of crap.

The story is over now.

[BonerJoe]

I could have told you that.

[N0Lif3]

I could have told you that.

Well, you didn't!

Shish.. Why does government need to be so complicated? I think it would be great if all politicians were replaced by Linux programmers who follow the KISS philosophy. "Keep it simple, stupid!"

[BonerJoe]

If you are going to court over money and the plaintiff is the government, I really don't think you can win. Either by having to pay out of your pocket or waste your time.

[N0Lif3]

If you are going to court over money and the plaintiff is the government, I really don't think you can win. Either by having to pay out of your pocket or waste your time.

Right. Just as there should be separation of church and state, there should be a separation of justice and state.

[One two three]

My attempt at spread the word of freedom, http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=4399

[mikehz]

Here's how the state ran the con in Washington. In July of 08', the hands-free law went into effect. It was loudly advertized--along with the fact that it was a "secondary offense only. You cannot be stopped merely for using your phone." Translation: It's perfectly fine to use your phone as long as you're not speeding, etc. Many people just continued using their phones. They still do.

BUT, what was hardly advertized at all is that a short time after the law went into effect, it became a primary offense. Now, it's like a turkey shoot, with cops writing tickets as fast as they can pull cars over. For the state, it's good times, with free money!

[Bill Brasky]

I noticed early on the tactic she was using, everybody who pled guilty or no contest received a reduction to their fine. I imagine that this is an incentive so that you'll just give up. What I found really strange is that if you chose "not guilty" that they wouldn't dispute it on that day. They reschedule you to come back within the next 45 days to, I assume, have a REAL court case. Don't I have the right to a speedy trial? This must be some kind of loop hole.

What you were at was basically an arraignment.  It was the face-to-face version of mailing in the ticket with the Guilty or Not Guilty options selected.  If you would have remitted the Guilty (with the payment) by mail, its the same as pleading guilty in person.  If you would've plead Not Guilty by mail, they would've sent you notification of the "trial" date by mail.  

Long story short, you weren't at the trial today, arraignment is not a trial.  Arraignment is a notification of what you're facing, your "rights", and the chance to skip the trial by pleading Guilty.  

In traffic court No Contest is just a way to speed things along and keep their docket from stretching out into infinity.  Its traditional to offer reduced sentence in No Contest because its a plea bargain, otherwise it would be a pointless exercise if the sentence was more severe than Guilty.  (Although No Contest has more significance in real court). 

Anyway, your right to a speedy trial...  They provided you one.  I believe the loose interpretation is six months from arraignment, if you haven't requested an extension.  The speedy trial provision is how the constitutional framers worded the concept of not keeping you locked up forever awaiting a trial that never comes.  Its so you're not locked up without a trial within a "reasonable" period of time.  If that amount of time passes and it can be shown that the court hasn't done its job of acquiring evidence or setting a scheduled hearing, they have no case and you're excused from the proceedings.  



 

[KDus]

In every (traffic) case I've dealt with in CA, I had to specifically waive my right to a speedy trial, for more than 45 days.

Each time was as described. A line of people pleading guilty for a reduced fine. Each time, I've been the ONLY person to ask questions about rights, jurisdiction, or procedure. At trial, I've been the ONLY person to challenge the proceeding itself, instead of arguing about what did or didn't happen.

CA is a land of sheep.

[Libertarianssuck]

[youtube=425,350]gcRWADEln80[/youtube]

funny