Can I beat this ticket?

[01WS6]

I was cited for "Failure to yield to a stationary public safety vehicle" in Ohio. I was traveling southbound on 75 near bowling green in heavy traffic. There was another truck about 7 seconds distance ahead of me that didnt move over until the last second for a state boy with a pulled-over 4-wheeler, which was limiting my view of the right shoulder. I had 2 cars next to me and 3 more behind those ones and couldnt move over. I slowed the truck as much as I could given the limited time I had to react and the fact that I was carring a 45000lb load, but apparently that wasnt good enough for the officer so he tracked me down about a mile later and nailed me for it. I'm using Interstate Trucker to fight the ticket, the cop has declined for a plea bargain and wants a court trial in which i will have to appear with my lawyer. This is a 2 point offense but when its sent back to my home state its going to be changed to the nearest offense, which is failure to yield to a moving AMBULANCE, and is 4 whopping points. As I said I did slow down as much as I could but i was going about 55mph when i passed him (the speed limit was 65mph). The cop said I didnt slow down but I dont see how he could have been able to tell how fast I was going other then by making a visual estimate. He complained about making has car rock back and fourth too. I feel that the raising of the speed limit to 65mph for trucks in Ohio is partly to blame for this, its getting harder for troopers to cite drivers for speeding now and as most of you know truck driver ticket revenue funds half of Ohio's state budget so they are looking for any excuse they can to write a citation. Has anyone else had to fight a ticket like this?

[Rev.Vassago]

I was cited for "Failure to yield to a stationary public safety vehicle" in Ohio. I was traveling southbound on 75 near bowling green in heavy traffic. There was another truck about 7 seconds distance ahead of me that didnt move over until the last second for a state boy with a pulled-over 4-wheeler, which was limiting my view of the right shoulder. I had 2 cars next to me and 3 more behind those ones and couldnt move over. I slowed the truck as much as I could given the limited time I had to react and the fact that I was carring a 45000lb load, but apparently that wasnt good enough for the officer so he tracked me down about a mile later and nailed me for it. I'm using Interstate Trucker to fight the ticket, the cop has declined for a plea bargain and wants a court trial in which i will have to appear with my lawyer. This is a 2 point offense but when its sent back to my home state its going to be changed to the nearest offense, which is failure to yield to a moving AMBULANCE, and is 4 whopping points. As I said I did slow down as much as I could but i was going about 55mph when i passed him (the speed limit was 65mph). The cop said I didnt slow down but I dont see how he could have been able to tell how fast I was going other then by making a visual estimate. He complained about making has car rock back and fourth too. I feel that the raising of the speed limit to 65mph for trucks in Ohio is partly to blame for this, its getting harder for troopers to cite drivers for speeding now and as most of you know truck driver ticket revenue funds half of Ohio's state budget so they are looking for any excuse they can to write a citation. Has anyone else had to fight a ticket like this?

I believe the law is 20 mph under the posted speed limit if you can't move over. The problem with the scenario you've given is that if you couldn't see him, and you couldn't slow down in time, then you're admitting you were following the vehicle ahead of you too closely.

[01WS6]

I believe the law is 20 mph under the posted speed limit if you can't move over. The problem with the scenario you've given is that if you couldn't see him, and you couldn't slow down in time, then you're admitting you were following the vehicle ahead of you too closely.

I know that in Texas the law states you have to slow down 20mph under the speed limit, however I looked up the ordinance number I was cited for in Ohio, and the law doesnt state an exact mph that you have to slow down to while passing the officer. As far as following distance goes I had seven seconds following distance on the truck ahead of me, which from what i understand is considered a safe following distance at 65 mph. I hope the law for ohio isnt 20mph below the speed limit, but even if it is the biggest issue is how did the officer obtain my speed when I passed him? I dont see how he could have got me on radar. :confused:

[Rev.Vassago]

I know that in Texas the law states you have to slow down 20mph under the speed limit, however I looked up the ordinance number I was cited for in Ohio, and the law doesnt state an exact mph that you have to slow down to while passing the officer. As far as following distance goes I had seven seconds following distance on the truck ahead of me, which from what i understand is considered a safe following distance at 65 mph. I hope the law for ohio isnt 20mph below the speed limit, but even if it is the biggest issue is how did the officer obtain my speed when I passed him? I dont see how he could have got me on radar. :confused:

He didn't cite you for speeding, so the exact speed is irrelevant. In his expert opinion (and his opinion IS an expert opinion whether you want it to be or not), you were traveling too fast to yield, and by your own admission, you lacked the reaction time to slow down to the commonly accepted 20 mph below the speed limit given the weight of your vehicle.

It would be no different than if you were given a citation for "following too closely." The officer doesn't have to have measured the distance between you and the vehicle you were in front of to make the determination that you were doing so.

[GMAN]

It sounds like you have nothing to lose by fighting it. As to whether you can beat it or not, that is debatable.

[Uturn2001]

Here is a little "trick" I used when caught in that type of situation. If I can't move over and I know I am not going to get slowed way down in time because I didn't see the vehicle soon enough I hit the brakes and full jakes. The jakes help slow you down and the noise helps warn the cop that something is coming.

[SickRick]

1 second for every 10 feet of rig + 1 more second over 40 MPH. I know the additional second doesn't seem like much, but 65 Miles per Hour = 95.333 Feet per Second - potentially more than enough additional space to recognize the hazard.

Most tickets are "beaten" by the officer doing a no-show for the trial date. Lawyers will usually ask for a continuance if he shows for the first one, hoping he no-shows for the second one. Troopers on Traffics Patrol's job description is: write tickets & go to court.

These "mover over" laws were enacted because too many cops were getting KILLED during traffic stops. Hence cops are REAL KEEN in seeing this law ENFORCED (really can't blame them there). You can't have it BOTH WAYS - truckers complain about different speeds for cars and trucks being unsafe, then you're trying to blame the increased speed for trucks, on what truly just amounts to YOUR BAD LUCK.

Expert witness or not, the biggest issue is getting the cop to testify as to just HOW he know you hadn't slowed down below whatever the statute specifies and Ohio's law IS rather AMBIGUOUS on this point (http://law.justia.com/ohio/codes/orc/jd_4511213-eb69.html). A truck moving where "the driver shall proceed with due caution, reduce the speed of the motor vehicle, and maintain a safe speed for the road, weather, and traffic conditions" will rock a car on the shoulder whether they're doing 65, 55 or 45.

A "good lawyer" can argue this ambiguity - but a small town judge will usually side with the cop. CDL drivers can't get "no points/driving school" - we either BEAT IT OR EAT IT. Keep in mind you also need to report this to your EMPLOYER...

Rick

[LBF]

Get your proper statutes for Ohio and ALWAYS use the correct wording. Do not make reference to any other state's requirements, or any specifics that the prosecuting jursidiction's statutes does not contain.

As noted, it is up to the officer to explain to the court how he determined you to be in violation.

It is up to you to tell the court how it is you complied with the statute.

Never mind the sad story about not seeing in time. Drivers have the responsibility to not drive the vehicle in a manner that it cannot be controlled within the distance you can see....

Stick with the traffic beside you preventing a lane change and that you slowed on seeing the cruiser.

And you now know that the enforcement community expects to see a greater reduction in speed as you blow their hats off....

[Rev.Vassago]

Get your proper statutes for Ohio and ALWAYS use the correct wording. Do not make reference to any other state's requirements, or any specifics that the prosecuting jursidiction's statutes does not contain.

As noted, it is up to the officer to explain to the court how he determined you to be in violation.

Yes, if he is asked. The prosecution likely won't, so it's up to the defense to do so.

It is up to you to tell the court how it is you complied with the statute.

I disagree. Taking the stand in your defense is never a good idea, as you can be cross examined by the prosecution. The burden of proof should be kept on the prosecution. Taking the stand in your own defense is a last resort, and is never required. I've beaten tickets before without ever having anyone take the stand other than the officer.

[Kevin0915]

It sounds like you have nothing to lose by fighting it. As to whether you can beat it or not, that is debatable.

He'll lose the time and the miles he could have driven to show up in court. And i am sure the court will not reward him with said lost pay should he win.

I would have fought my famous 'barricade' ticket, or atleast the equipment ticket, but figure it was marginal at best that i'd get it overturned, not to mention not get rewarded the lost pay.

But hey, if it keeps it off your record.

[01WS6]

If i plead guilty it will be changed to failure to yield to an emergency vehicle in my home state which is FOUR points. A four point ticket will likely get me fired so i have to fight it.

[cdswans]

I did a quick search using only the statute #. I found 2 Ohio cases on appeal for which your statute was the "probable cause" for traffic stops that resulted in convictions for OUI/DWI. Their premise is that your statute is so vague, there really was no probable cause to stop the drivers who were ultimately convicted of OUI/DWI. Both convictions (OUI/DWI) were upheld becuse in both cases, the cops were justified to stop them, just like they did you . . in their expert opinion . .

It's important to note . . they were appealing OUI convictions, not "move over" convictions. In either case, the State probably dropped the "move over" charge to prevent it from interfering with the OUI charge. It's still a reasonable stop, whether or not the charges were dropped.

One of the cases states clearly that there is very little "case law" regarding your statute. In other words, cases like yours, however disposed, don't get appealed. That tells me that A, those who get the tickets usually mail in the fine and forget it, or B, if they do get in front of a Jodge, the statute is so vague that the cases get thrown out; no conviction = no appeal = no case law, and C, lawyers, in general, think your statute is vague.

If your lawyer gives you the "I think I can get this done but it will cost you . . " routine, you have a scumbag for a lawyer.

I've got about 2 hours into this so that'll be $1500, thank you. Sorry, no checks.

Now, beat it.

NEXT CASE!

[chuck3507]

It doesn't matter what the ticket is you should always fight it. I had a friend that beat an 11mph over speeding ticket. He just kept appealing it until it reached a judge that didn't have time for it and dropped the charges. It did cost him about a thousand dollars though. He had to beat it because before he got his cdl he got stopped driving his dodge dually pulling a tandem axle gooseneck and was told he qualified for commercial use.

[01WS6]

I did a quick search using only the statute #. I found 2 Ohio cases on appeal for which your statute was the "probable cause" for traffic stops that resulted in convictions for OUI/DWI. Their premise is that your statute is so vague, there really was no probable cause to stop the drivers who were ultimately convicted of OUI/DWI. Both convictions (OUI/DWI) were upheld becuse in both cases, the cops were justified to stop them, just like they did you . . in their expert opinion . .

It's important to note . . they were appealing OUI convictions, not "move over" convictions. In either case, the State probably dropped the "move over" charge to prevent it from interfering with the OUI charge. It's still a reasonable stop, whether or not the charges were dropped.

One of the cases states clearly that there is very little "case law" regarding your statute. In other words, cases like yours, however disposed, don't get appealed. That tells me that A, those who get the tickets usually mail in the fine and forget it, or B, if they do get in front of a Jodge, the statute is so vague that the cases get thrown out; no conviction = no appeal = no case law, and C, lawyers, in general, think your statute is vague.

If your lawyer gives you the "I think I can get this done but it will cost you . . " routine, you have a scumbag for a lawyer.

I've got about 2 hours into this so that'll be $1500, thank you. Sorry, no checks.

Now, beat it.

NEXT CASE!


I hope your right about it being thrown out of court, because I really dont think any judge is going to take my word over a law enforcement officers. I think my only real hope is the fact that the cop has no way to VERIFY the speed I was going when i passed him, other then his visual ESTIMATE. It seems the way that law is written that if i was going 64mph when I passed him I would have been following the law since there is no specific speed listed to which I was supposed to slow down to. Note that like I said before, I was going more then 10 miles under that speed when i passed him. The fact that im pulling a 53 foot trailer with 45000 pounds in the back also helps explain why i couldnt move over OR stop on a dime like the officer would have liked me to do. I'll be taking my bill of lading with me to court that day showing the weight of my load and a few photos representing traffic conditions and the clear obstruction of view that another tractor trailer has even while at a safe following distance, so the cop cant say that i should have seen him a mile away. Hopefully the judge will understand that I cant control the actions of other drivers in cars and trucks alike when they are passing me. As far as an appeal goes, how many do I get? Just one? And If I lose and do appeal does that stop the citation from being put on my record until the new hearing is done with?

[Rev.Vassago]

I hope your right about it being thrown out of court, because I really dont think any judge is going to take my word over a law enforcement officers. I think my only real hope is the fact that the cop has no way to VERIFY the speed I was going when i passed him, other then his visual ESTIMATE.

He didn't give you a speeding citation, so the actual speed is irrelevant. The citation he gave you is SUPPOSED to be based off his subjective opinion. In this case, it appears he was correct, since you already admitted to being only 10 mph under the speed limit.

[01WS6]

Im glad your not the Judge then because id really be ****ed wouldnt I?

[cdswans]

I hope your right about it being thrown out of court, because I really dont think any judge is going to take my word over a law enforcement officers.

You need to get that idea out of your head. It's your court that you pay for. You're going in with a lawyer and a lawyer is an officer of the court every bit as much as the LEO is.

It's not your word against the cop's. It's the presentation of the facts and the application of the law. This case comes down to 3 questions:

Did you move over as the law requires? No, you couldn't, as the law anticipates.

Did you slow down as the law requires? Yes, you did.

Were you operating in a safe manner, consistent with the conditions? You say you were and you have a living, breathing cop and an intact cruiser to prove it.

Case closed. Unless he's got dash-cam video showing his hood lifting, a bunch of dust flying and your trailer doors . .


There's a narrow stretch on SB 405 around Renton, WA where I had the misfortune of running out of fuel during rush hour. I made it into the breakdown lane with five tires against the right hand concrete barrier and five on the fog line. The cars and trucks that passed real close rocked me and those that gave a little room didn't. Your cop may have fealt threatened, as I did, in my circumstances. I'm guessing that's why you got the ticket but you didn't do anything wrong.

[Rev.Vassago]

Did you slow down as the law requires? Yes, you did.


10 mph is not what the law requires.

[01WS6]

Maybe in Texas it isnt but Ohio doesnt have a REQUIRED amount of mph that you must reduce speed.

[Rev.Vassago]

Maybe in Texas it isnt but Ohio doesnt have a REQUIRED amount of mph that you must reduce speed.
Which means that it's up to the cop to decide whether you met the provisions of the law. And he has already said you didn't.

Hey - you may be able to get off on this ticket. I hope you do. But I have my doubts. Please make sure to let us know what the final result of it is.

[cdswans]

Which means that it's up to the cop to decide whether you met the provisions of the law. And he has already said you didn't . .

It's up to the cop to render an opinion based on his observations and he did so by issuing the ticket. It's up to the judge to "decide whether you met the provisions of the law."

The law is vague and your lawyer shouldn't have any trouble making that clear. Vague is rarely construed to benefit the State. It's your advantage.

If the cop is writing tickets because he's scared by fast moving 18 wheelers passing within inches, he's in the wrong line of work. If he felt that you acted maliciously, carelessly or recklessly, he could have cited you for driving to endanger . . but I wouldn't bring that up . .

[Rev.Vassago]

But since the law is clearly written to be enforced by a subjective opinion, it's pretty much impossible to refute.

Cop: He didn't yield to an emergency vehicle on the side of the road

Prosecutor: And how did you determine this?

Cop: He was in the right lane, and travelling too fast.

Defense: How did you determine he was travelling too fast?

Cop: With my eyes, and the fact that he shook my vehicle when he passed me.

Defense: Can you readily determine how fast someone is travelling with your eyes?

Cop: Yes.

[cdswans]

This is a 4 page discussion with the other side's point of view . .

Move over law - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com (http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56723)

The COPS like this law and they like enforcing it. Who can blame them? They also resort to a little chicanery which, while I don't like it, I still can't blame them for doing.

[cdswans]

But since the law is clearly written to be enforced by a subjective opinion, it's pretty much impossible to refute . .

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. If you'll agree, I'll bet a bottle of Petron on the outcome. Petron for you and Absolute for me. I doubt they'll ever get in front of a judge but for the sake of the bet, my position is no conviction.

[Rev.Vassago]

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. If you'll agree, I'll bet a bottle of Petron on the outcome. Petron for you and Absolute for me. I doubt they'll ever get in front of a judge but for the sake of the bet, my position is no conviction.
Normally I don't bet, but I will take this bet, based on a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict. If he convinces a prosecutor to plead it down to a lesser conviction, then there's no reason to bet, as we won't know the TRUE result.

Based on the link to the police forum you provided, the "move over" laws haven't been contested all that much, and when they have, they tend to hold up. I am very curious on the outcome of this. Personally, I think the law needs to be more clearly defined.

[01WS6]

well ill be sure to let you all know the outcome of this, as i always do on here when i ask for help. The prosecutor and the cop have all refused a plea bargain with my lawyer, but that could change

[cdswans]

well ill be sure to let you all know the outcome of this, as i always do on here when i ask for help. The prosecutor and the cop have all refused a plea bargain with my lawyer, but that could change

Go to plol.org (it's free) and do a search under your statute #. You'll get plenty of results like this:

2004 Ohio 4990


State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Carolyn Caplan, Defendant-Appellant.


Case No. 03 MA 91.


Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County.


Dated: September 17, 2004.

Her charge was the same as yours, she was convicted, she appealed and won her appeal. In her appeal, she raised two issues . .

Constitutionality of the statute because it is so vague . . the appeals court wouldn't address this because the issue was not raised at trial. Dumbass lawyering?

Weight of the evidence . . the court concluded she was right. All the details are in there. I found this to be of particular interest:

{¶18} The only absolute mandatory duty in the statute is to "proceed with caution." The duty to change lanes is a conditional duty that is dependent upon certain factors such as road conditions. Therefore, the key consideration here is whether or not it was possible for appellant-motorist to safely change lanes as contemplated by the aforementioned traffic provision. Appellant said she could not. (Tr. 16). The arresting officer said she could. (Tr. 9).


Her case was remanded back to the original court for a new trial. There is no information as to an outcome, if any, but I'd be very surprised to learn the prosecutor wanted to expend too many additional resources on relatively small potatos.

If you read it through, you'll get an idea of what's important to the court and how they see things. If your lawyer is any good, he's already aware of this (or similar) case(s) and can use it's outcome to help reinforce your case before trial.


I'd send you a link to make this easier but you have to register to get to this page. I've been registered here for over 2 years and have never received any spam, etc.

[Rev.Vassago]

Go to plol.org (it's free) and do a search under your statute #. You'll get plenty of results like this:

2004 Ohio 4990


State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Carolyn Caplan, Defendant-Appellant.


Case No. 03 MA 91.


Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County.


Dated: September 17, 2004.

Her charge was the same as yours, she was convicted, she appealed and won her appeal. In her appeal, she raised two issues . .

Constitutionality of the statute because it is so vague . . the appeals court wouldn't address this because the issue was not raised at trial. Dumbass lawyering?

Weight of the evidence . . the court concluded she was right. All the details are in there. I found this to be of particular interest:

{¶18} The only absolute mandatory duty in the statute is to "proceed with caution." The duty to change lanes is a conditional duty that is dependent upon certain factors such as road conditions. Therefore, the key consideration here is whether or not it was possible for appellant-motorist to safely change lanes as contemplated by the aforementioned traffic provision. Appellant said she could not. (Tr. 16). The arresting officer said she could. (Tr. 9).


Her case was remanded back to the original court for a new trial. There is no information as to an outcome, if any, but I'd be very surprised to learn the prosecutor wanted to expend too many additional resources on relatively small potatos.

If you read it through, you'll get an idea of what's important to the court and how they see things. If your lawyer is any good, he's already aware of this (or similar) case(s) and can use it's outcome to help reinforce your case before trial.


I'd send you a link to make this easier but you have to register to get to this page. I've been registered here for over 2 years and have never received any spam, etc.

No, you don't need to register to get to it. I got to it quite easily:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/7/2004/2004-Ohio-4990.pdf

The dissenting view was particularly interesting, especially about how the appeals court gave more weight to the defendant's opinion than the law normally allows (this is an important point which is relevant in the OP's case as well, as the court will generally give more weight to the finder of fact - the officer - than they will a witness - the driver). This case you've cited seems to be an exception to the rule, and the dissenting judge states as much.

But this particular case, the ruling judges even give "special consideration" to this one case, rather than making it the rule of law (because of the location of the exit ramp, etc.), so it won't be applicable in the OP's case anyway.

It also does not address AT ALL section 2 of the statute, which states:



(2) If the driver is not traveling on a highway of a type described in division (A)(1) of this section, or if the driver is traveling on a highway of that type but it is not possible to change lanes or if to do so would be unsafe, the driver shall proceed with due caution, reduce the speed of the motor vehicle, and maintain a safe speed for the road, weather, and traffic conditions.


And from what the OP stated, this is the section under which he was cited.

[SickRick]

The statutes in most of the states that I've checked seem to be as vague - mostly, by not specifying how much slower under the posted speed a driver has to reduce to - to be considered to be "maintaining a safe speed for the road".

With all the coppers that have gotten "picked off" while making traffic stops, it's quite understandable this offense would create a "soft spot in their heads" (so to speak), but nonetheless - a truck can still blow a smokey bear hat off someone's head on the shoulder and still be operating safely, below the speed limit, and conscious of the officers presence/safety and STILL get cited due the to vagueness of the law. Sure, most cops can visually tell the difference between 65 & 45 (since Florida law does state a 20MPH reduction, where Ohio's does not), and most judges are going to side with an officer on the SENTIMENT of this issue - but not necessarily on the LETTER OF THE LAW.

As cases get kicked back down from folks that can AFFORD TO APPEAL, the states are probably going to have to amend their statutes to be a little more specific. In the OP's case (from what he said), he really SHOULD HAVE seen the bubble-gum-machine on the side of the road in time to sufficiently slow down (or at least look like he was TRYING TO), since he didn't say; "I came around the blind curve, was "billboarded" by the van in front of me and didn't see him". If he was "otherwise distracted" and just wasn't paying attention and saw the cop at the last second - it's STILL ON HIM - as we're SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING ATTENTION. A well prepared attorney SHOULD be able to cast enough DOUBT in a judge/jury's mind, to beat the case regardless (again, if he's able to get past the sentimentality).

OTOH, the "cop forum" on the previously posted link, also shows that some cops are using the statute to create "revenue stream" and are specifically using a stopped unit (and RADAR) as "bait" to stop & cite offenders. Considering how much rubber-necking goes on whenever there's flashing lights on a road - you'd think folks would have slowed down enough to gawk, that traffic would be moving at a greatly reduced speed ANYWAY...

Rick

[cdswans]

No, you don't need to register to get to it. I got to it quite easily . .

I use the plol site because one search gets me into the courts of all 50 states. I start with the skin of the onion and work my way in. It's not unusual to find references to a statute from one jurisdiction or a higher court being used in another jurisdiction, especially if there is no case law in the home jurisdiction.

As to applicability, I think you under estimate the value of this statement, the ironic use of Absolute, notwithstanding.

The BIG COURT SAID . .

{¶18} The only absolute mandatory duty in the statute is to "proceed with caution." Their "PERIOD"; not mine.

I would call that definitive language. If OP's lawyer has half a brain he'll know how to use that language . .

"Yo, y'onna . . We are constrained by the court to it's interpretation of the statute."

By the way, the finder of fact is the trial court, not the cop.

As for the dissent, well, that's intense. First off, had the original case been tried in front of a jury, our speculative discussion would have ended already. In Ohio, a successfull appeal of a jury verdict would have required the unanimous consent of the three jodge panel. Since it was a bench trial, it required only a majority (2/3) and, in this case, it sucks being jodge #3.

[cdswans]

As cases get kicked back down from folks that can AFFORD TO APPEAL, the states are probably going to have to amend their statutes to be a little more specific . . ANYWAY . . Rick

Rick . . if this was just another "I F'd up" post, I might not have got involved.

I'm one of those drivers that has always moved over/slowed down, even before the signs came out. I certainly didn't have any problem when the signs came out but when I began to read how the law was being applied, I started to wonder if this wasn't a little bit like the seat belt laws . . It was perfectly legitimate but, in the way it was being enforced, it looked a lot like just another excuse to pull someone over. If you read the OUI cases, you'll see what I mean.

The OP states that, if he loses, he's going to be out of a job. So, I've looked a little deeper because I wouldn't want to lose my job to a screw that's had his hat blown off. My thinking is that, if I can help the OP to understand what he's up against, he can be prepared, win his case and avoid the cost of an appeal. If he's going to lose, he'll have a better idea of how he lost. In any event, we'll all have a few more Drivers who'll be a little more cognizant of how close they're following and what might lie ahead.

[Rev.Vassago]

I use the plol site because one search gets me into the courts of all 50 states. I start with the skin of the onion and work my way in. It's not unusual to find references to a statute from one jurisdiction or a higher court being used in another jurisdiction, especially if there is no case law in the home jurisdiction.

And like I said, I searched it on that site without registering.

As to applicability, I think you under estimate the value of this statement, the ironic use of Absolute, notwithstanding.

The BIG COURT SAID . .

{¶18} The only absolute mandatory duty in the statute is to "proceed with caution." Their "PERIOD"; not mine.

Ok, your point? The officer who cited the OP said that he wasn't. Now it is up to the OP to prove that statement incorrect. How exactly do you propose he is to prove that he was indeed "proceeding with caution?" Because he didn't kill anyone? That could have been dumb luck. As I've already said, answering that question is completely subjective. The officer says he wasn't, which is why he was given a citation. Even the OP states that he couldn't slow down more before encountering the emergency vehicle, which indicates a desire to. Now if the OP already felt he was "proceeding with caution," why would he want to slow down more? So that he can "proceed with more caution?":lol:

By the way, the finder of fact is the trial court, not the cop.

No, the finder of fact is the prosecution, of which the officer is an extension. The court is the "trier of fact"

[navguy05]

Welcome to America, land of guilty till proven innocent. Looks like yet another driver falls victim to the "revenue stream" for Ohio. They can't get us for speeding so much anymore, have to get that all mighty dollar from truckers somehow. Maybe they're using the money from bogus tickets like these to get the cops all calibrated eye surgery so they don't need radar to tell exactly how fast I'm going. Wish I could look at a moving vehicle and tell how fast it was moving, I wouldn't even need a speedo in my truck anymore. Free up some dash space. They should get their own TV show, instead of Reno 911, and call it The Six Million Dollar BEARS. Anyway, sorry about your luck OP, getting caught up in this state-run money racket.

[cdswans]

Now it is up to the OP to prove that statement incorrect. How exactly do you propose he is to prove that he was indeed "proceeding with caution?"

'Nuf said. You have no idea what the heck you're talking about. The burden of proof is on the state.

[Rev.Vassago]

'Nuf said. You have no idea what the heck you're talking about. The burden of proof is on the state.
The state will prove their case with expert testimony from the cop. The defense then needs to prove that testimony to be wrong. This is basic courtroom procedure. If you honestly believe you don't need to disprove the prosecutor's case, then you clearly have no idea how a court works. "Innocent until proven guilty" is done the second the cop testifies. Then it's "guilty until proven innocent."

[Ridge Runner]

The state will prove their case with expert testimony from the cop. The defense then needs to prove that testimony to be wrong. This is basic courtroom procedure. If you honestly believe you don't need to disprove the prosecutor's case, then you clearly have no idea how a court works. "Innocent until proven guilty" is done the second the cop testifies. Then it's "guilty until proven innocent."

Good try, but NO! Just because he is a cop does not mean he is an expert. I'm not sure about Ohio but there is no where that I know of that has any training for an LEO to judge the speed of a vehicle with the eye that will stand up in court. As far as the driver staying in the right lane, can the cop show that the driver could have moved over? There is no way ( except for video from another car or an eye witness ). As far as "safe manner" goes, how can the cop prove unsafe? He didn't hit him did he? :lol:

If the OP puts up any kind of defense the charges should be thrown out. Now you have to admit I'm right because I ( was ) a cop and that makes me an expert in all matters of traffic violations. You have no defense unless you bring in another "expert" because my decision has more weight.


Sorry Rev. It don't work that way. The cop HAS to PROVE his case and only a small amount of the finding of the facts will poke holes in the cops case. I can think of only 2 or 3 questions that it would take to have the charges dismissed. Those questions DO NOT have anything with proving his innocence but to poke holes in the cops case. There is a big difference.

Follow me here: :thumbsup: If you produce a GPS reading from the QC that shows that you were only going 35mph at the stated time then you are proving your innocence. If you ask the cop ( on the stand ) to show you his certification in judging speed with the necked eye, then you just blew his whole case.

[Rev.Vassago]

Good try, but NO! Just because he is a cop does not mean he is an expert. I'm not sure about Ohio but there is no where that I know of that has any training for an LEO to judge the speed of a vehicle with the eye that will stand up in court.

He wasn't given a citation for going a certain speed.

As far as the driver staying in the right lane, can the cop show that the driver could have moved over? There is no way ( except for video from another car or an eye witness ).

The cop witnessed it.

Sorry Rev. It don't work that way. The cop HAS to PROVE his case

No, the prosecutor needs to prove his case. He'll use the cop to do so.

and only a small amount of the finding of the facts will poke holes in the cops case. I can think of only 2 or 3 questions that it would take to have the charges dismissed. Those questions DO NOT have anything with proving his innocence but to poke holes in the cops case. There is a big difference.

Follow me here: :thumbsup: If you produce a GPS reading from the QC that shows that you were only going 35mph at the stated time then you are proving your innocence. If you ask the cop ( on the stand ) to show you his certification in judging speed with the necked eye, then you just blew his whole case.

The OP already admitted to going past at 55 mph because he was incapable of slowing down more once he saw the cop. The reason for that is because he was following the truck ahead of him too closely (7 seconds according to the OP). I'm sure the court has a definition of what constitutes "yielding" under the law. If they don't, then the OP won the case. If they do, and can show the OP didn't do those things, then he lost. The fact that he was so free with the information here (that he couldn't slow down in time because of the truck in front of him) leads me to believe he also disclosed this, at least in part, to the cop.

[01WS6]

Actually Rev I didnt tell the cop anything other then i couldnt get over and said i was sorry i shook his car. Either way i expect to lose when i go to court in early november. ill let you know

[01WS6]

And as a side note Interstate Trucker told my employer about this ticket. Safety called me last week about it. Luckily im NOT getting fired over it even though it will be 4 points if convicted.

[Rev.Vassago]

And as a side note Interstate Trucker told my employer about this ticket. Safety called me last week about it. Luckily im NOT getting fired over it even though it will be 4 points if convicted.
Good news. Hopefully Interstate Trucker does a better job for you than they did for me.

[Ridge Runner]

Quote:
As far as the driver staying in the right lane, can the cop show that the driver could have moved over? There is no way ( except for video from another car or an eye witness ).

The cop witnessed it.


No. The cop only witnessed that he ( the driver ) did not move over. There was no way he could tell if the driver had the ability to move over. Unless the cop was laying on the ground and saw NO other car tires and even then it would be subject to if the cars were at the OP's drives or tandems of the trailer. There is no way I am excusing the driving habits of the OP. He should have been more "aware". But as far as taking it up the ***** for something like this, I would fight it.

[cdswans]

Good news. Hopefully Interstate Trucker does a better job for you than they did for me.

01WS6 . .

I'm going to let you in on a little secret . . I have read and heard of many instances where these "agency" lawyers don't put a lot of effort into their cases. I don't know how much you're paying Interstate but I think it's fair to conclude two things . . it's affordable for you and your lawyer isn't getting the whole thing, whatever it is. Agency work is there to fill slots in the attorney's calender. A lot of lawyers don't have empty slots and don't take agency work.

If you have a trial date, the chances are pretty good the "discovery" process is complete and your lawyer has the entire state's case in hand. The rules are that the state has to produce their game plan in it's entirety in order for your lawyer to adequately defend you and that would include any means the cop intends to use to back up his ticket. Have you talked to your lawyer? Has he said anything about what they intend to use to try to hammer you?

If you go in to that courtroom thinking you're facing a possible $500 fine and 4 points, for example and they offer a reduced fine and/or reduced points, will you be happy with that? In your original post you asked if you could beat this ticket. Do you still want to beat it? Your last post implies you think they've got you. Why?

[01WS6]

cdswans: The lawyer at interstate trucker said that neither the prosecutor or the officer wanted to give a plea bargain, because the cop said i didnt slow down. I want to beat the ticket but

[01WS6]

the way my lawyer was talking to me it seemed like even she thought i was guilty. I feel im not. I did everything i could to move over and slow down without risking a pile up. Hopefully the

[01WS6]

local guy their getting me will have more confidence in their client. I asked I. T. about getting discovery of the evidence and they told me not to worry about it. Im starting to doubt these guys.

[cdswans]

local guy their getting me will have more confidence in their client. I asked I. T. about getting discovery of the evidence and they told me not to worry about it. I'm starting to doubt these guys.

I wish I had asked this sooner . . are you keeping good records of your contacts with Interstate? "Don't worry about it" worries me, too. Also, do you know what day and for what purpose you are to next appear in court? It sounds like the coaches are keeping secrets from the team.

The reality here is that this is not big potatoes to a lazy or lousy lawyer. Unfortunately, as in every walk of life, the majority fall into one of those categories. To a good lawyer, EVERY case is big . . all the eyes get crossed and the Ts get dotted. Category L-L lawyers are happy to "wing it" with the ticket and the cops report/narrative. Category G lawyers will craft a set of questions and depose the cop/witness(es) to get to the bottom of what they have and what motivates them and then build a defense around it. Unfortunately, either method is perfectly legit and you'd respect either if you win, which is how they get away with it.

Remember what I posted earlier . . the majority of these tickets probably get mailed in with the fine?

You're paying good money because you're interested in a different outcome. It doesn't matter how much you paid. You paid and you are entitled to a thorough and aggressive defense. You need to get a handle on where you stand, how aggressive they intend to be and what strategies they intend to deploy. Your license should mean as much to your lawyer as it does to you.

[cdswans]

I'll try to keep this short and simple. I don't do business with any referral services. Lawyers and other professionals often don't have anything to do with the referral services you and others may be paying into. Very often, a referral service is nothing more than a marketing company or a list aggregator.

How it works . .

Lets say Jim the marketing genius recognizes the need for farrier services . . horse shoers. Horse enthusiasts are constantly on the go, buying, selling, breeding, showing and racing horses. It would stand to reason that sooner or later, one of these horses will throw a shoe and it could happen anywhere. Jim thinks that if he can put together a list of every shoer in the land, he can offer a one call solution to the witless horse owner. Jim puts together his list and realizes he needs to confirm the accuracy of his list. He wants the system to be streamlined and easy to manage. He doesn't want to waste any time calling on anyone who no longer exists or isn't interested in participating. He also wants newer shoers (new state licensees) just getting started who may be very eager to participate to help grow their new business. He comes up with a brochure that says I won't charge you a penny (although some might) and I will send business your way if you agree to the following conditions . . and after the initial referral, you own the customer and you can charge them whatever you want. Jim sends out the brochure and over time he builds a refined list of professionals that respond and will accept his referrals under predetermined conditions.

Now Jim needs to find horse enthusiast customers. He researches the horse business and creates a list of every known horse owner, breeder, event, publication, facility and association he can get his hands on. Jim creates a brochure, figures up a fee structure and promises for a fee, with one call, you can be assured of high quality farrier services at anytime and in any place your travels may take you. He mails out the brochure, hires big titted agents to work truck stops for some reason, and in every way he used to build his provider list, he will continue to refine his customer list, collect more fees and grow his business . . without so much as ever having pounded a nail.

Jim's Farrier Service promises "1000s of Satisfied Customers" (hasn't had any complaints, yet) yet employs no farriers and doesn't know the first thing about shoeing a horse.

Suddenly, in the dark of the night, subscriber Bob Tailednag calls in a panic and requests emergency farrier services for his favorite fillies. Jim asks Bob to stay near a phone and assures him that help is on the way. Jim consults his list for the first farrier closest to Bob's zip code and finds Don Durango. Jim calls Don and states his business to which Don replies "who . . what . . are you sure you have the right number?" With a little prodding, Don recalls that he did agree to the deal 3 years ago when he first got out of school and licensed but didn't have any customers. "I'll try to squeeze him in but I'm a busy man . . " says Don, to which Jim replies "you're the first name on the list and there's a lot of shoe activity out your way . . you own this customer after this deal . . or I can simply take you off the list and all my future calls will be to your nearest competitor." Don, being the honorable guy that he is, agrees to take the lousy paying deal and provide prompt, quality service with his eyes toward the heavens and his fingers crossed behind his back.

[Rev.Vassago]

When I hired Interstate Trucker to fight a ticket, they never even bothered to enter my not guilty plea. I ended up getting a default judgement that I had to get overturned. IMO, those people are worthless.

[golfhobo]

And as a side note Interstate Trucker told my employer about this ticket. Safety called me last week about it. Luckily im NOT getting fired over it even though it will be 4 points if convicted.


Somehow.... I DOUBT this. I've used "them." There are many ways your employer might find out about it.... but, I don't see how it would come from Interstate Trucker.

Just sayin'...

[Biscuit Lips]

If I can get out of a ticket for passing an unmarked P.O. at 73 MPH OVER the posted speed limit, on a motorcycle, surely the OP could get out of this BS ticket.

[cdswans]

. . Either way i expect to lose when i go to court in early november. ill let you know . .

Is the OP still around? Is the Rev still around?

It's early November and I want my booze!

[01WS6]

lol im still here cdswans, my trial is friday morning ill be sure to let you all know what happens, even if i end up getting a plea bargain

[01WS6]

Well as much as i would have loved to see who would be getting the boose, I got a plea bargain for a non moving violation since i drove 200 miles to show up in court. Maybe next time...

[Red Clay Rambler]

Glad to hear it. Did you have an attorney with you or did you go it alone?

[01WS6]

Thanks. Yeah i had some lawyer that interstate trucker sent for me. He was 10 minutes late. Go figure. Its going to cost me a fortune to get out of this, 240 for the ticket AND

[01WS6]

i have to take a nice 80 dollar defensive driving class in toledo. This is a crock but the cop was hellbent on me getting 4 points on my MVR. If i didnt drive for a living i would have had a trial.

[golfhobo]

Well as much as i would have loved to see who would be getting the boose, I got a plea bargain for a non moving violation since i drove 200 miles to show up in court. Maybe next time...

See.... this is ONE reason why I wish I had pursued a career as a lawyer. This is total B.S. How can they accept a plea for a NON MOVING violation for an offense of NOT MOVING OVER for a cop while DRIVING a vehicle?? :hellno:

Don't get me wrong.... I think you got a good deal. But, if the cop says you didn't MOVE over, while MOVING your truck down the road and TRAPPED in the lane closest to him.... and INSISTS that you didn't SLOW DOWN while "moving" your vehicle.... well..... how can he allow a plea of NOT GUILTY to the moving violation and accept a NON MOVING violation plea? How could you endanger HIS LIFE, if you were NOT MOVING?????

As a "wouild be" lawyer.... I would HAVE to appeal this decision on the irrationality and contradiction of fact. I would ask the appeals court to rule that the lower court could NOT find you guilty of a "non moving violation" when the only charge and testimony given by the state was that it was a MOVING violation.

But, NEXT TIME.... if you can't move over, slow WAY down and put on your flashers. Hit the jakes even if you don't NEED them.

[01WS6]

Golfhobo you can bet your ass that next time im going to slam on my brakes as hard as I can, even if its Icy out, or even if im hauling swing beef. And if i jacknife i hope the trailer slides

[01WS6]

towards the cop and not the people next to me in the hammer lane. The main point is its all about MONEY and thats ALL its about. I just worked a week for free because a cop has to make his quota

[01WS6]

and if i actually DIDNT slow down it would be one thing but I did, just not enough for the cops ego.H aving 0 points on my record helps if my employer asks me anything about something else on my MVR

[cdswans]

. . The main point is its all about MONEY and thats ALL its about . .

Safer roads and lousy drivers not withstanding, it is about the money and it can be particularly harsh on a CDL holder and especially harsh if you're not local to the ticket. It's lose time and money to show up, lose money to hire a lawyer or to simply pay the fine or, as is the case with the OP, lose all the way around. It's a system that I try to avoid at all costs because, once you get caught up in it, there's really no way to win.

My father was a lawyer and his advice was, if you want to keep your license, drive like you don't have one.

You, OP, could and should have beat the ticket. The "highest court in the land" relatively speaking, interpreted that law to mean your only duty was to proceed with caution. That's akin to telling all the lower court judges and all the lawyers who argue before them that there's no reason to squabble over this, here's what the statute means. Your judge may have been completely unaware of that ruling. It was up to your lawyer to make him aware. It didn't happen because either your lawyer didn't know enough or wasn't being paid enough to make it happen.

GH . . as to your fledgling legal career, there's generally only one thing that can trigger an appeal and that's an unresolved issue raised at trial . . kind of like a lawyer says "But judge, you can't do that!" and the judge says "Yes I can and I'm going to!". Then the lawyer goes to the next higher court and says "Look what the rotten judge did!" If, as is the case here, everyone agrees to a plea bargain, there is no basis for an appeal, no matter how absurd it might appear. Of course, as I'm typing this it occurs to me that the OP could file an appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel. (Not me; the paid counsel!)

[golfhobo]

Swanny said:


GH . . as to your fledgling legal career, there's generally only one thing that can trigger an appeal and that's an unresolved issue raised at trial . . kind of like a lawyer says "But judge, you can't do that!" and the judge says "Yes I can and I'm going to!". Then the lawyer goes to the next higher court and says "Look what the rotten judge did!" If, as is the case here, everyone agrees to a plea bargain, there is no basis for an appeal, no matter how absurd it might appear. Of course, as I'm typing this it occurs to me that the OP could file an appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel. (Not me; the paid counsel!)


Well, you're right of course that you can't appeal if a plea was accepted. However, MY understanding of the basis for appeals is that it is USUALLY a "procedural" mistake by the lower court. Your example is one of those, but there are others. MY point is that there is a certain irrationality and possibly a conflict in law as to dismissing a violation that is BASED on the testimony of a cop saying that the offender didn't MOVE properly, and then accepting a plea of guilty to a charge that essentially says he WASN'T "moving."

By doing so, the court is admitting that the offender wasn't actually "moving" and therefore could NOT be guilty of the offense charged with, because they JUST WANT THE MONEY.

Whether or not the higher court would hear my appeal is another question, but I would MAKE the appeal based on the fact that the lower court's own action/resolution was a finding "in fact" that the offense could NOT have been committed by my client.