You plead, so you don't have further recourse AFAIK.
Sounds like you're in a state where traffic court is run by a magistrate, not a judge. A magistrate administers the law; they have a broader role than either a judge or a DA and do the job of both, on low-level civil and traffic matters.
"I always heard" is shorthand for "I don't know and neither do my friends".
Both cost time/money. The system is opposed to those whom don't have an excess of either of those. OP was not prepared to argue their case or ready to negotiate a deal. They are asking after the fact which we cannot change without a time machine or crystal ball. It is in poor taste to mock them when they are trying to understand what just happened to them. What we take for common sense may not be an option for some people.
Just dropping in to say good on you for having empathy and some perspective.
Your comment should be plastered across Reddit and the internet in general.
This is Reddit, the only way we feel good about our insignificant lives is to mock other Redditors on mistakes that even we make in our lives cause internet anonymity!!
>It is in poor taste to mock them when they are trying to understand what just happened to them.
No, the OP was not asking to understand what already happened. The only (quasi) question the OP asked was whether they should fight the plea deal that they already accepted.
The implications of that are that they did not understand what they had accepted. I can recognize that as well as the redditor that was talking down to them could.
They already knew that the basis for their beliefs was ‘I always heard’ before they went to court.
That’s the point of mocking that mentality, if people are more aware that what friends and TV and social media tell you is largely nonsense, he might have bothered to actually look up how this might have worked and made better decisions/ tempered expectations.
I always heard that if you are in a police chase and either cross a county line or jump a broken bridge, the police will stop chasing you. Turns out that may not even be true in Hazzard County. TV lied to me.
In Illinois, I have seen officers not show up for the second appearance for traffic violations and the prosecutor asked for a continuance at a later date.
The defendant in this case said he had taken off work and shown up ready to defend his case and would not like to continue the case. He said he would like to make a motion to dismiss because there was nobody to testify against him and the judge granted his motion and he walked away with his case dismissed.
That's because what you know about court comes from TV.
The "cop doesn't show, you win" is definitely urban legend. Edit: I guess I could have worded this better because it's gotten a lot of people worked up. Just because "the cop didn't show" will cause the judge to dismiss the case in a lot of jurisdictions doesn't mean that it's because they HAVE to. The judge chooses to do it each and every time. Even if OP is in a place where they normally let people go if the cop isn't there doesn't mean OP can somehow still get off, because that judge, on that day, decided for whatever reason that she was not going to give OP the break she gives 99.9%of people. And judges can do that. So no need to share the "but it happened to me" like this is one of the laws of thermodynamics. You got a break, don't assume it has to happen every time.
Are you sure it was even a judge? In some states it's a magistrate for traffic tickets. Since you didn't say which state, who knows?
Either way, I'm not sure what you would be fighting about, or what you would be fighting for? It looks like you got a good deal.
Not to mention that if you pled guilty, they can absolutely use that against you. "Were you lying to the court then, or are you lying now?"
The "cop doesn't show, you win" is definitely urban legend.
There's more to it than that.
When you show up to the time & date on your ticket, the cop will basically never be there, because you're just entering a plea.
The point where the cop needs to be there is if you elect to contest the ticket at an ACTUAL court appearance (not the part where they put 30 of you in the room and the judge zips through all 30).
If the cop isn't at that court date, THEN you would have a very easy time getting out of the ticket.
My guess is that is what is going on here. OP showed up to their "batch" date. If they knew that they wanted to contest the ticket, they could skip that entire affair just by informing the court of their decision and proceeding to the actual affair.
I got a case dismissed once on my second appearance because the cop didn't show up.
I pled not guilty, and when the cop wasn't there, the judge dismissed my case immediately. Lol
I got lucky.
Most PDs every day is paid vacation for them lmao. Ever wonder why 90% of cop videos you ask "isn't there anything better they could be doing??" while they tackle an elderly dementia patient, the answer is 'no'. Not every PD is NYPD
I mean, there absolutely is in most areas with roads.
In the ~60 minutes I am on the road every day I see 2-3 red lights blown, and multiple minor infractions stacked at once (speeding while cutting across 2 lanes, speeding while passing on the right and changing lanes without turn signal, tailgating, driving on the shoulder....)
The average driver has gotten so aggressive most police departments could fund themselves if they just put 90% of the force on traffic duty.
My favorite cop in traffic court story was when I caught him lying on the stand and the judge flipped out when I tried to introduce pictures that proved he was lying under oath. 😂
Got a good one for you. A friend of mine when we were teenagers got ticketed for stunting. Cops claimed he was doing 120 in a 50. He used Mathematics and physics to prove the car he was in could not have reached anywhere near that speed after leaving the red light due to the weight of 6 passengers. Cop lost his shit and the Judge was so impressed he dropped the charges.
You only have “rights” until an authority figure decides you don’t. The right to a speedy trial is a joke. People sometimes sit in county jail awaiting trial for years.
I think the cop not showing up is a violation of your right to cross-examine the witnesses against you. That’s a sub-set of the right to face your accuser.
I tried to contest a ticket once. Failure to yield. It was written due to an accident. Legally, it was my fault because I collided with the rear of another vehicle. Though realistically, I didn't break any laws.. I just lost a traction competition. It was sleeting out. The person in front of me slammed the brakes because someone started sliding into their lane (but never did). My car didn't stop. I went to court all dressed up at 16 years old and contested the ticket. The officer wasn't present so I was sent to talk to the prosecutor and was given a continuance. The next court date was the same routine. Contest the ticket and get a continuance. 6 times In a row.
Eventually I got fed up, hired a traffic attorney and received a letter that the case was dropped. Then received a letter that I had a "warrant for arrest" for failure to appear in court. It turns out that my municipality assigns a new case number for each continuance and this attorney just assumed the case was dropped based on the original ticket's info.
The situation was remedied but I still ended up paying almost 400$ for a muffler ticket and attorney fees
Eh....in Portland, OR I got a speeding ticket AND ticket for a "suspended" license in 2009.
Oregon has mandatory insurance forms they send through the mail to random licensed drivers in the state. When I got pulled over, they told me I also had a suspended license. However, plot twist here.
We had just bought a new house a couple of months prior. In Washington. I had WSU license plates and my WA license. Best guess is the mandatory insurance paperwork showed up at the old address *right* after we moved. I had changed over the plates and license the week after we took possession of the keys and ended up having to take the paperwork for the house to court to get the suspended license/insurance ticket dropped.
The speeding ticket would've been dropped if the cop wasn't there. He was. As it was, speeding ticket fine was reduced for showing up and paid.
The kicker? *EXACTLY* one week later after being pulled over on the Ross Island Bridge, I got pulled over on the Washington side of I-205 at Mill Plain and given a ticket...for 4 miles over the speed limit. 2 in one week when I'd never had one prior. THAT cop was a jerk too. Of course, having a black car and being in the left lane probably didn't help either.
Maybe things have changed, but when I got a ticket many years ago, the cop didn’t show at court. The judge clasped his hands over his head in a victory gesture to me and out I walked, charge dismissed.
Saybinaccurate and prove my point. Cop not showing had nothing to do with it. It was preliminary processing. And the judge has full authority, as long as you plead guilty or no contest. The judge can drop it to no fine.
But if you want to contest it, that's a completely different case, and that court date is when the cop shows up.
Careful when talking, you'll reveal that you dont know what you are talking about when you dont.
You are assuming that it works the same in all jurisdictions which it doesn’t even if we are talking about just the US. Funny how you berate someone for speaking without knowing what they are talking about while being so wrong yourself. I know for a fact that you can show up for court, have the ticketing officer not there, plead not guilty and have the case dismissed because I have done it. Twice. In two different states. Maybe it works the way you describe where you live or have been ticketed but that doesn’t mean it works that way in the thousands of different courts across the nation.
Someone's one anecdote with no surrounding explanation about their family member getting off with the cop not present says absolutely nothing.
That's what I responded to just there. If they had included more detail other than "hey bro you wrong, it happens, yo", I might be inclined to see a difference.
In leroy's case, it could have completely been a prelim hearing, and the judge just dropped them because it was a weak ticket for any number of reasons. But with such an absolute lack of any real info, hard to tell.
On top of that, 2 family members both getting tickets from the same cop for the same appearance date is a REALLY good indicator that it was a preliminary hearing to begin with.
Mist be dependent on state. In Pennsylvania, you send in the ticket with a plea of guilty and your fine remittance, or plea of not guilty to get a. date for a hearing in response. If the officer doesn't show for that hearing, charges are dropped. If they do show, you come out of that hearing with a finding of guilty or not guilty, or they may let you plead down to a lesser charge.
Wait, so I would have to miss 2 days of work, not just one, to get out of a bullshit $250 ticket? What's stopping them from just giving out illegitimate tickets left and right, knowing it costs twice as much to contest it than to just pay it?
It's probably going to be 3 to 5 days of work you miss to fight a ticket. This is an effort to make people pled guilty and not fight tickets. A poor person can't afford to miss work a rich person loses more by fighting the ticket then the ticket cost.
Not true. Cop doesn’t show is automatic win. At least in Chicago. I got hit pulling out of my driveway, and because I had to pick up my 7yr old child from a party. The cop let me leave the scene. When I returned he handed me a ticket.
I was like WTF, and his reply was that “well somebody had to get a ticket”. I printed out that the other driver had to be going well over the speed limit to cause that accident and he finally agreed.
He told me he couldn’t take the ticket back but he wouldn’t show up in court so it would just be dismissed. He didn’t show. The judge said dismissed.
Not urban legend.
I've had a judge straight up say that they were going to call the cop to see if he was going to make it, and if he wasnt they would postpone my court date. Neither side of this is consistent across the country
So, lots of controversy below, which stems from forgetting (or not knowing) that *it depends where you are*.
Some states, it goes like OPs situation, others, no cop = dismissed.
My personal experience is no cop = dismissed, but I know that is one county in one state, not everywhere.
It's really not even dependent on state. There is no law that says if the cop doesn't show it gets dismissed that I know of.
It's just a bunch of people assuming that because that's what happens some places, that it must be a law.
If It's not a law anywhere period, therefore, it's a myth that they have to let you off.
You are sure about that, for all 50 states, and municipal courts within all of them?
No law or ordinance that requires an appearance *anywhere*?
I should have said that it depends on the state *and the violation/offense*, as that is more accurate.
I have said several places that I'm willing to be proven wrong. However I'm reasonably sure that if some member of a trial isn't available, a judge can continue the case. If you are aware of a law or ordinances that say a trial MUST be held on the day it's scheduled I'd love to see it.
Incorrect. Not an urban legend at all. I have had many traffic cases dismissed due to the fact the officer (i.e. the states only witness in most cases) failed to appear.
It obviously depends on location, like everything else. In some states, it's all done by magistrate. The cop that gave you the ticket never shows. In other states, you can get a trial if you go before the judge, and the police have a representative, not the actual officer.
I'm not aware that there are any states that have a hard rule where you win if the police don't show up. As far as I know the judge always has the option to reschedule, although he/she also has the option to dismiss, just like in absolutely every other case.
Yeah, so not at all an urban legend. I agree there is no specific rule saying it must happen, but it can and does. Yes I've had judges grant continuances, and it can even depend from courthouse to courthouse even within the same jurisdictions, but they are regularly dismissed when the citing officer fails to appear for trial, and far from an urban legend. Just because a lot of people don't understand the difference between an arraignment and trial doesn't make it untrue.
Yea, so "cop doesn't show, they have to let you go" is just false. It's popular jailhouse lawyer advice, which is why I said urban legend. Maybe that was too strong of wording for you, but I feel like it wouldn't matter because you are looking for a fight anyway.
You notice the lawyers in here bullying anyone who disagrees with what they want people to believe is true versus what is actually true. Had the guy just motioned the court I believe the case would have been dismissed.
As a lawyer, one of the most incredible things about this subreddit is seeing my and other lawyers’ correct answers being downvoted while incorrect answers from non-lawyers make it to the top. I guess I appreciate the job security.
I may be weird, but the guy you are agreeing with is a self described sovereign citizen.
And I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can show that "the judge MUST dismiss" is a law anywhere in the country.
>The "cop doesn't show, you win" is definitely urban legend.
In Maryland and Virginia this is actually how it works. I have been in several sessions with a room full of defendants, and if the cop didn't show (which happened for about half the cases), the judge actually suggested that the defendant plead "not guilty" and would let them off (IIRC they had to pay some minot court fees but that's it).
Sure, it can happen. It happens frequently in some places. But I'm still waiting for someone to show me a place where it legally HAS to happen.
As far as I know, a judge can choose to continue the case. It's possible that isn't how it works everywhere, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
This is not true. In Washington DC if the cop does not show, your ticket gets tossed out. I know this because I would push my court dates months out hoping cops would not show and they never did.
I’m literally telling you what happens in Washington DC and my first hand experience. I think I read somewhere that 50% of the time, the police don’t show up in DC thus resulting in cases being tossed.
On one occasion, I had pushed my court date out 3-4 months and to 10:30am, the officer worked night shift. I show up to court, there are 6 of us in a room, and 5 cops. My cop was white so looking at the cops there I automatically knew I was the only one who’s cop didn’t show. Judge let me go and the ticket disappeared. Everyone else stayed.
Another time I showed up and no one’s cop showed. The judge dismissed everyone. It was like Oprah giving out free cars.
And I'm literally telling you that just because a thing happens sometimes, or most of the time, or even almost every time, it doesn't mean it HAS to happen.
There are lots of things that happen virtually every time, but that doesn't make them law.
Saying the judge HAS to let you off because the cop didn't show is a myth.
I'll tell you what, next time, when you go to court, say to the judge "the cop didn't show up, so if you don't let me go, I'll have you arrested ". See what happens.
I’m not saying it happens everywhere but to blanket state as you did, it’s just tv and never happens, is incorrect. TV misrepresents a lot but different jurisdictions can have their own policies, DC has this policies, OP’s probably has a different one
Did I say that it never happened? I don't think I did. I Know that it's a very common thing to happen, but that doesn't make it law, and that doesn't help OP any. THIS judge decided not to let him go, he can't fight that because his fool cousin and a bunch of dopes on the internet said, "I got off when the cop didn't show".
What I said was that the common jailhouse lawyer advice of "if the cop doesn't show, they have to let you go" is an urban legend.
I still maintain that's true because they only HAVE to let you go if there is a rule that says so. I can find no evidence of such a rule anywhere. Can you?
If not, then even if the judge lets people go 99.99999% of the time, that doesn't help OP because they can still choose not to let him go.
It's not urban legend, it's the confrontation clause. The government is charging the defendant with an infraction, the defendant disputes it, it's the prosecutor's burden to prove that the defendant committed said infraction with evidence such as the testimony of the officer who wrote the citation. It is ridiculously improper for a judge to offer a plea deal to someone when the prosecution has not entered any evidence to prove the defendant committed the infraction.
It depends on the state and ticket, but no, most normal traffic citations are not criminal, and you are not entitled to a jury trial or public defender either.
I have gotten 3 traffic tickets in my life. For 2 of them the cop didn’t show up, and the judge let all of the people who received a ticket from that cop leave without ever having to step up in front of him.
It's not urban legend. There's a lot of places like that. In NYC if the cop doesn't show it gets rescheduled and then a second time it'll be thrown out.
> Not to mention that if you pled guilty, they can absolutely use that against you. "Were you lying to the court then, or are you lying now?"
A plea is not testimony, so it can't be a lie. It's a just a declaration of whether you want to contest the charge.
Judges will often give someone an opportunity to reconsider a guilty plea. In fact, in some situations a judge can refuse to accept a guilty plea.
[You can withdraw a guilty plea](https://www.justia.com/criminal/plea-bargains/withdrawing-a-guilty-plea/)
> If a judge has not yet accepted a guilty plea, the defendant likely can withdraw the plea. They also may be able to withdraw a plea if the judge has not yet sentenced them. However, a defendant may face difficulties in withdrawing a plea once the judge has sentenced them. Withdrawing a plea at this stage may require showing that allowing the conviction to stand would result in a clear injustice. A judge may deny a request to withdraw a plea if it would harm the prosecution’s ability to prove its case or if the defendant agreed to waive the right to an appeal.
Did you even read past the first line of what you posted?
The OP already has been sentenced.
A guilty plea can be used against you when asking for a new trial, it happens all the time. It requires a person to state on the record that they agree they did the thing.
It's nowhere near "just recant".
Harris v. New York concerns statements made to police officers and testimony at trial, it has nothing to do with pleas or allocutions.
See Kercheval v. United States and United States v. Udeagu.
Cop not showing when you win is not an urban legend. I've gotten out of multiple tickets because the cop didn't show. It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but where I've been no cop and I won every single time. The judge literally said since a cop didn't show case dismissed you're done.
Wow. Reading through these comments, you've got a wide gamut of legal opinions. I think whatever happened is done and history. You signed a plea and accepted a deal (which is probably the kind of deal you were looking for, anyway). Your hope of getting off on a technicality almost certainly went out the window the moment you signed that plea deal. No going back, now. Well, perhaps, technically, you could try to go back on your deal and reopen your case, but the odds of you being back in that same situation are slim to nil, and probably not without considerable expense (time &/or money). If it were me, I'd move on and forget about it.
If, however, you find yourself in that situation, again, what you should have done was tell the judge that you contest the ticket and request a speedy trial. Tell the judge that you are prepared to offer your defense right then and there. And you darn well better be prepared to offer a legit defense argument, with supporting evidence, if asked.
I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing all that would have happened if you had done all that was the judge would have noted for the record that you are disputing the ticket and then set another hearing date - probably 30 to 90 days out. Probably (I don't know for sure) THAT date won't be your trial date, either. You'll be expected to appear, again, and provide some good reason why you are contesting the ticket. You'll likely have a ton of hoops to jump through before you ever actually get to confront your ticketing officer (and perhaps an actual prosecuting attorney?).
How much is your time and effort worth to you? If the judge is offering the deal you were hoping to get from the prosecutor, what difference does it make? Take the deal and move on with your life. Or you can fight the system on principle. But if you don't know both the letter of the law and the system inside and out (procedurally), you are likely to lose that battle. And waste a whole lot of time and effort in the process.
It can be like this. Depends on the state.
My husband wasn’t yet diagnosed with dementia. Stopped in Virginia, expired tags, expired DL, speeding. We weren’t yet married when he got the ticket. This was late 2020 / early 2021. He dressed in his best suit, we went to court. An expired DL in VA is like having none at all. I was concerned he would not withstand any questioning.
The judge asked him to state his name. The judge then said “The officer who stopped you resigned from the force. Case dismissed”.
Immediately after he received his diagnosis, I got him a State ID and said “no more driving”. His a$$hole sons said “it would be self limiting when he wrecked his car” - uh what about the other people on the road?
I click on these out of morbid curiosity because I want to see just how shitty people's legal takes are. As an attorney I'm not going to risk a number of potential ethics violations by offering any legal advice.
Which is why the correct answer on every single one of these questions is "talk to an attorney."
I went to an Atlanta court for a potential Super Speeder ticket, and i was an out of state resident. There were like 700+ of us between a few courtrooms. Before the judge came in the court administrators gave us plea options: not guilty, guilty, guilty-bench, NOLO (could only use that it you had a clean record for 5 years), jury, etc. Most of us just said guilty-bench, and the judge did exactly what happened to you, reduced fine and no points. You're good, it's all bullshit. Thankfully, i got reduced to 14mph over for $150 instead of like $1500. I still got points because there is no reciprocation between some states on the points thing; lower fine, still points. I'm squeaky clean these days.
Hmmm, are you sure you went to traffic court or pre trial? Usually you go to pre trial and plead not guilty. Then court day, if the officer doesnt show up you can get your ticket dropped.
Cop doesn't show the first time. Courts also love these things they call a continuance. I remember showing up a court date once, and the whole docket got rescheduled bc the judge had a family emergency. I remember being pissed bc if I had a family emergency, I'd have to choose between not dealing with it or being found guilty in absentia.
Neither is obligated to show up. This is generally how traffic court works. The judge gives you options, like paying the whole fine, paying a partial fine, etc.
I got pulled over years ago for speeding, the cop wrote the ticket to my dad (went off the truck’s registration instead of my license she was holding). We took it to court since she didn’t ticket the right person. Cop didn’t show and the judge just corrected the name on the ticket and said Now pay it. Lesson of the story? Don’t get pulled over in Tallahassee Florida.
The cop showing up thing is a myth, the cop doesn't need to be there and in most cases isn't there. Depending on your state if you keep pushing appeals eventually you will get to a level where he is required. The first appeal in pretty much all states (there may be one or two that are an exception) is an administrative process not a legal process so the typical rules of law don't apply. In fact you are assumed guilty and have to prove your innocent in these administrative hearings.
In my state the specific court that handles traffic offenses is decided by the judge and there is never a DA and cop never shows. If you want to fight the ticket you have to request a court date. Be careful with those plea deals. If you are licensed in a different state that you received the traffic offense then you are punished by your states laws. You will get points regardless if a judge in a different state says you won’t. They offer a plea because they know they can get the money out of you thinking your state will comply with their ruling.
The judge /magistrate has discretion to adjourn the hearing date. Dismissal isn't automatic. I have also seen hearings where the cop didn't show up, but the magistrate dismissed without prejudice, which leaves open the possibility of refiling.
I’m just gonna be the one to say this … you got a fair deal. Unless you believe you weren’t actually speeding/doing whatever caused you to get the ticket, it sounds like you made out just fine.
Pay the ticket, don’t egregiously speed, pay attention when you’re driving, and stop wasting taxpayer money on magistrates and court costs and for cops to come to testify for bullshit when they have laws to enforce.
In some places you go in and it’s a preliminary hearing.
You then request trial.
Then you need go back again for trial.
You still need pay “bond” equivalent to the ticket to be released.
They do this as a type of legal manipulation and it can be a total of 5 court appearances to get the final trial.
So yes what’s the California rule and only California rule is cop shows up.
I beat that by requesting a new court date and it was cops vacation time. Ticket dismissed.
The rest of the country has smarter tax collectors.
It depends on your state. In my state if the cop doesn't show up as witness to a traffic ticket then it gets thrown out. In the bordering state of NH the cop will always show up unless there is some crazy extreme circumstance to prevent them because they are required to.
If you request a trial date and the cop doesn’t show the ticket gets dropped. If you just showed up to court on the date on the ticket and plead, but you don’t like the results you can appeal the decision with an attorney who can say you had ineffective council.
We have this prayer for judgement decision in our laws, and I accepted that which is no points or penalty on normal insurance, but I had commercial insurance and it raised my premium over $1500 a year. I was able to get a lawyer who got that conviction removed and the original charge reduced to improper equipment. No points or insurance penalty.
You need to ask for a dismissal. If you were given an appearance ticket for a trial, you are allowed to confront your accuser. If the accuser is not there, you can not confront them. Sadly some places you do not need to be a lawyer to be a judge and they do play fast and loose with the rules. They also take advantage of people who do not know any better. I know a guy here who got caught trespassing and was arrested for it. His court date shows up and nobody there, not the property owner nor the cop. He asked if it was over, and they said it could be but he could not be found innocent unless he went to trial, so they got him to come back. He came back three times and all 3 no one there, and I guess the judge finally had his fill of it. You could not argue with him though, he insisted he could only be found innocent if it went to trial. In some inbred places they get away with that kind of crap so often they get used to it unless they are dealing with a lawyer. BTW, a lawyer is often times a good investment. May be within a few bucks of the ticket but they can keep your license clean. Another pal, not a moron this time, a work buddy, got a fast car and got a ticket and he was "busy" so he just pled guilty and paid it. I saw him Xeroxing the ticket and the money order off. Urg. I tried to tell him to fight it. I guess he did that a few more times and the last time it was going to suspend his license and that was several K of lawyering instead of $200 bucks, and he was still right at the edge. Much better off and easier and less expensive keeping a clean license clean. Just sayin...
Washington State once gave my wife a speeding ticket and a bunch of information was incorrect on the ticket and they still upheld it.
I live in Texas now where they don't even patrol for speeders; too busy shooting civilians I guess
I can tell that this is undoubtedly a small-town cop that wrote you. I can also tell you that you got a good deal. Don't get another ticket for a year, and it won't go on your driving record. Small towns will go out of their way to make things as bad as possible if you try to get out of paying them. I've been down this road, figuratively.
it was a good deal for you. the judge could have continued the case and thereby forced you to return to court (and probably be found guilty). she was saving your time and the court's by offering you a plea deal. it's neither improper or unusual. contrary to your opinion, the judge was neutral (by definition they are trained to act thusly) and was not acting to your disadvantage. she could have found you guilty herself and fined you the maximum, but that would be contrary to a judge's proper order.
.NAL
Took a "no lo contraire" (no contest plea) first offence and paid 90$ total instead of the 250$ ticket. No points.
Officer didn't show but didn't have to.
Had I entered a plea of "not guilty" I would have been rescheduled and then the cop and the vest cam and me would all be there and the new judge would be annoyed due to the evidence.
We were moved like cattle through at sign in we were explained we had 2-3 choices, "no contest/ guilty summary / not guilty"
"No contest" would be court fee (50$) + offence type (chart given).
(Moving vs non moving, minor involved vs no minor involved, substance involved vs no substance involved, all additional charges on ticket added extra (no seatbelt, non working lights/unsafe travel, distracted, reckless))
"not guilty" we would provide initial evidence then be called another day, if found less than innocent the original ticket + court fee + administration fee (officer needing to testify time) would be ALL levied + full points.
If found not guilty no fees, no points, but the success rate w/o a $250-$500 lawyer is <2%...
"Summary judgment guilty" was basically for repeat offenders or grievous offensices but looked like it worked like "no contest" but much more expensive. I wasn't offered that, we each were told what our choices were.
The “I always heard” legal strategy, only works 30% of the time. Should have requested all charges be dropped due to no witness & your lost time & aggravation.
You plead guilty or no contest at your arraignment. If you had plead not guilty a trial would have been scheduled and if the officer didn’t appear it’s possible the case would have been dismissed.
It’s been my experience (Mo USA) when you show up and plead not guilty, they reschedule a trial date. If the cop doesn’t show then, its normally dismissed at that point.
When I got speeding tickets (which was rare) I would just pay the fine and get deferred adjudication so as long as I didn’t get another ticket it wouldn’t count against me.
This happened to me.
No one showed. No cop, no prosecutor, no judge. I had to ask the clerk of the court what was up. The clerk went back and interrupted the judges lunch. The judge came out and said “case dismissed “ and struck the gavel and that was it. No cop, no case. Free and clear.
You were there to pay and not to ask questions. How dare you? Seriously, after Chicago courts it was amusing to see a clerk and a Boston cop who listen to your side of the speeding ticket story instead. After I pointed out ticket description that said they just dismissed it.
The one time I had to show up to traffic court (Cleveland) the cop didn't show up. Judge asked if there was a motion to dismiss, I said yes, walked away paying nothing.
Now the officer also was incompetent on multiple fronts. It was a car accident and he let the other driver go before even asking for my version of events. Also didn't have his flashing lights on until I said something - again after the other driver left.
Because you were only at a plea hearing. If you had pled not guilty then you would have gone to a trial where you have the right to confront your accuser.
Ugh. When you first show up for court it's called an "arraignment" and that's where you are offered this kind of 'deal' if you want to plead guilty. In 95% or more of cases, people plead guilty because the deal is a good one and people, just like police officers, have better things to do than show up in court for a trial, especially over some trivial stuff that can be settled by paying a fine and having the certainty of not getting points on your record.
I'm sure you saw that your arraignment only took 2 minutes or less, and depending on the size of the jurisdiction, there were probably at least 30+ other people getting arraigned at the same time. If you think it sucks to have to go to court this one time, imagine being a cop and having to go to court with all the other cops several times a week like this? It doesn't happen.
The only people who get a trial are the people who plead not guilty. That's the part where the cop has to show up and make his case.
I went to traffic court in a small city recently and they also didn’t have prosecuter in the court room but in every case there was a sheet ftom the prosecutor on their reccomendation which is what the judge/magistrate used. When called options were take reccomendation, talk to prosecutor (they were down the hall) or contest and have a trial at a later date.
If you drive professionally Always get a traffic lawyer. Costs a few hundred up front. Will save you thousands in the long run. You still end up paying the fine, but no points and a non moving violation. Do not raise insurance. A single speeding ticket increased my insurance by 1200 a year for 7 years.
Also, be aware that no points doesn't mean it won't show as a conviction/violation on your motor vehicle report. As a former insurance agent, I can't tell you how many times people said they were lead to believe if they pleaded nolo that the ticket wouldn't show on their record. It will show and it will affect your insurance rate.
Did you actually ask for a dismissal? I’ve been there, and as soon as the judge asks for pre-trial motions I immediately ask for a dismissal as the prosecution is not available to present their case; and I am here prepared to argue my case. It’s hard not to grant that motion.
In the case that the prosecutor does not show, you should always make a verbal motion to dismiss on the record. The Judge/Magistrate will usually rule on this during the hearing. Without the prosecution there to object, you may earn yourself a win.
Though you may end up incurring the wrath of the prosecution on any subsequent cases you may have.
IANAL - however,
If this is your initial appearance in court, it is an arraignment. The judge tells you what you are charged with and asks whether you plead guilty, no contest or not guilty. The prosecutor and cop don't have to show up for an arraignment.
In some courts, the prosecutor may supply the judge with a sheet that lists basic, minor charges and the deal they would offer for a guilty plea. If you plead not guilty, your case will go to trial and the law enforcement officer would have to appear then, not at the arraignment.
It sounds like the judge had one of those sheets here. You got what in Minnesota is called a "continuance for dismissal". You do pay a fine but if you don't have another, similar offence for a year, the prosecutor rejects your plea and the charge goes away with no points.
I negotiated one of these with a prosecutor in MN to get rid of a speeding ticket.
What the courts want is people to drive safely. If they can get you to not speed, have insurance, etc. for a year, that's a win.
First thing is never go to court blind. Second is know your rights. Since you were deprived of your 6th amendment right to face your accuser you should have asked the case be dismissed. Best case it would have been, or at the judge/magistrate's discretion it would be continued until the officer could be available. On top of that, you should have exercised your right of discovery and requested the hard copy radar ticket along with calibration records for the specific instrument used. I always ask for the officer's service record on top of it. Fishing never hurts and something may get lost.
My last one the radar ticket went "missing" and there was no calibration record on a five year old instrument that the manufacture recommended yearly calibration. The officer had a couple minor reprimands on his record too.
At that point my lawyer ask the case be dismissed due to lack of credible evidence and it was.
Yes I paid my lawyer more than my fine would have been, but far less the the accumulated increased insurance payments for the next 3+ years.
The last ticket I contested worked out in my favor. The court officer just dismissed it.
Typically they group all traffic violation hearing first, then move on the their real court cases. Turns out, my case wasn’t in their paper work, and officer had some other issue. He just signed a piece of paper and “erased” my infraction.
I definitely have evidence to help my case, luckily I didn’t have to present it to get us dismissed.
The cop never shows up for a ticket like that. You have to request the cop be there. The judge wasn't personally offering you that plea deal. That was the plea deal for the offense you committed as a first timer. You took it, the end. Just remember that fact that no one is going to hold your hand and walk you through it unless you pay a lawyer. And something like that isn't worth paying a lawyer for.
The first court hearting listed on the ticket is preliminary. If you are contesting the ticket you will get a new court date. At that time the officer will have an opportunity to show up. Cops don’t just show up automatically to the first court date for all tickets they write. They’d literally live at the courthouse if they did that.
I'm pretty sure (in the US at least) that no one showing up constitutes no evidence being presented. Since it's innocent until proven guilty, no evidence=not guilty.
Broooo I wish I would have known you so I could have helped. I got in an accident that sent two others to the hospital. Their fault not mine, but because they were in the ambulance and I wasn’t I was given the ticket. Traffic court all day I was the very last one to go, but the whole time I was listening to the other lawyers and the verbiage they used to get the tickets dropped. I scribbled some notes down and when it was my turn it was just the officer and I. Judge said how do you plea and I said not guilty on account of there not being any whitenesses present here in the court room. She turned to the officer and asked if he had witnessed the accident, he said no, ticket was dropped.
As to “if the cop doesn’t show” myth, prosecutors in traffic court know they’re at the bottom of the pile in the district attorney’s office. They have a ton on cases to go through so they will dismiss minor traffic infractions as much as they can. When I was in college in North Carolina, though, I found out that prosecutors are less likely to dismiss if a state trooper wrote the ticket. I got out of a ticket because the trooper got the case continued to the day before thanksgiving. I met with the ADA during a break to let him know I was going home to Pennsylvania for thanksgiving and my witness was also not available that day.
So at least where I lived, the first hearing you go to isn't a "Trial" so nobody has to prove anything. They usually offer you a deal there. If you don't take it, it will go to a real jury trial. If the cop doesn't show up there, it's extremely hard to convict you since there's nobody there to tell that side of the story. That's when it gets dropped. Of course it's a risk because the cop COULD show up and then you may be on the hook for more than the deal.
If it's your first appearance you plea, that's it, in most courts. If your plea is not guilty, they'll then schedule a hearing at a later date at which the cop would be subpoenaed and expected to testify. At that stage if they failed to show up, your case would be dismissed (most of the time). You attended your initial hearing before a magistrate, and plead guilty. Your recourse ended at the admission of guilt in 99.999% of cases. If you'd seriously like to spend your and your grandchildrens life savings to hire lawyers to appeal to overturn your plea, to save the - what - $200 - go for it. Or, take the deferral, don't get in trouble during the terms, and you get no points, no increase in insurance rates, and just pay a small fee.
Went to traffic court with my wife in Chicago in 1969 , 50-60 people in a huge court room our baby started to cry and wouldn’t stop. The judge called out for the parent and asked what the ticket was for and dismissed it and told her to leave.
If an officer, or any other party to a court case, doesn't show up, such as a cop in a traffic court case, the judge is required to dismiss the case. That does not mean the judge cannot first entice you to plead guilty. So you should never have plead guilty. You should have stood your ground and respectfully plead innocent to the charges. Had you done so, the judge would have dismissed the case. Judges, like cops, are not your friend. They are almost always on the side of the law and cops. The fact that judges almost always let cops off Scott Free or with a slap on the wrist should have clued you in to the mindset of judges.
I’d hold out for a pretty please deal.
It may even come with a cherry on top.
Finger Guns!
Pew Pew Pew
I’d take the please deal, I’ve never fucked a judge.
You plead, so you don't have further recourse AFAIK. Sounds like you're in a state where traffic court is run by a magistrate, not a judge. A magistrate administers the law; they have a broader role than either a judge or a DA and do the job of both, on low-level civil and traffic matters. "I always heard" is shorthand for "I don't know and neither do my friends".
Exactly. Lol Don't go with "I've heard" when it comes to important shit. Duh.
Um, isn't that why they're here asking, no need to be a dick about it damn
Seems like someone has forgotten that the whole point of the internet is for being shitty to strangers. /s
lol for reals
The time to ask about it would have been before the court date. Not after the please deal was accepted.
Where were you then with your crystal ball? I'll bet you know everything you don't know.
Common sense says if you don't know before the event either educate yourself or hire a professional.
Both cost time/money. The system is opposed to those whom don't have an excess of either of those. OP was not prepared to argue their case or ready to negotiate a deal. They are asking after the fact which we cannot change without a time machine or crystal ball. It is in poor taste to mock them when they are trying to understand what just happened to them. What we take for common sense may not be an option for some people.
Just dropping in to say good on you for having empathy and some perspective. Your comment should be plastered across Reddit and the internet in general.
Using a search engine to check if this was even a thing was definitely an option for someone posting on reddit.
But that would have taken time! Like even 5 or 10 minutes
Takes time/money bro
If only there was a system in place that guaranteed everyone access to at least the most basic level of legal representation… if only
This is Reddit, the only way we feel good about our insignificant lives is to mock other Redditors on mistakes that even we make in our lives cause internet anonymity!!
People have excuses for everything now, huh? Ignorance is no excuse.
>It is in poor taste to mock them when they are trying to understand what just happened to them. No, the OP was not asking to understand what already happened. The only (quasi) question the OP asked was whether they should fight the plea deal that they already accepted.
The implications of that are that they did not understand what they had accepted. I can recognize that as well as the redditor that was talking down to them could.
"The truest form of intelligence, is knowing what you don't know."
They already knew that the basis for their beliefs was ‘I always heard’ before they went to court. That’s the point of mocking that mentality, if people are more aware that what friends and TV and social media tell you is largely nonsense, he might have bothered to actually look up how this might have worked and made better decisions/ tempered expectations.
Based on your attitude here, I'm shocked the judge gave you attitude...not!
“As seen on TV”
I always heard that if you are in a police chase and either cross a county line or jump a broken bridge, the police will stop chasing you. Turns out that may not even be true in Hazzard County. TV lied to me.
It’s true in Hazzard. Rosco is a pussy.
You fight it further. You've pled guilty.
In Illinois, I have seen officers not show up for the second appearance for traffic violations and the prosecutor asked for a continuance at a later date. The defendant in this case said he had taken off work and shown up ready to defend his case and would not like to continue the case. He said he would like to make a motion to dismiss because there was nobody to testify against him and the judge granted his motion and he walked away with his case dismissed.
I have also had hundreds of dollars of parking tickets dismissed when the ticketing officer didn’t show up to court in Illinois.
Ummmm… you gotta learn how to park…
That's because what you know about court comes from TV. The "cop doesn't show, you win" is definitely urban legend. Edit: I guess I could have worded this better because it's gotten a lot of people worked up. Just because "the cop didn't show" will cause the judge to dismiss the case in a lot of jurisdictions doesn't mean that it's because they HAVE to. The judge chooses to do it each and every time. Even if OP is in a place where they normally let people go if the cop isn't there doesn't mean OP can somehow still get off, because that judge, on that day, decided for whatever reason that she was not going to give OP the break she gives 99.9%of people. And judges can do that. So no need to share the "but it happened to me" like this is one of the laws of thermodynamics. You got a break, don't assume it has to happen every time. Are you sure it was even a judge? In some states it's a magistrate for traffic tickets. Since you didn't say which state, who knows? Either way, I'm not sure what you would be fighting about, or what you would be fighting for? It looks like you got a good deal. Not to mention that if you pled guilty, they can absolutely use that against you. "Were you lying to the court then, or are you lying now?"
The "cop doesn't show, you win" is definitely urban legend. There's more to it than that. When you show up to the time & date on your ticket, the cop will basically never be there, because you're just entering a plea. The point where the cop needs to be there is if you elect to contest the ticket at an ACTUAL court appearance (not the part where they put 30 of you in the room and the judge zips through all 30). If the cop isn't at that court date, THEN you would have a very easy time getting out of the ticket. My guess is that is what is going on here. OP showed up to their "batch" date. If they knew that they wanted to contest the ticket, they could skip that entire affair just by informing the court of their decision and proceeding to the actual affair.
I got a case dismissed once on my second appearance because the cop didn't show up. I pled not guilty, and when the cop wasn't there, the judge dismissed my case immediately. Lol I got lucky.
Yup. Where I am, cops always show up, because it's basically a day of paid vacation for how easy it is for them.
Most PDs every day is paid vacation for them lmao. Ever wonder why 90% of cop videos you ask "isn't there anything better they could be doing??" while they tackle an elderly dementia patient, the answer is 'no'. Not every PD is NYPD
I mean, there absolutely is in most areas with roads. In the ~60 minutes I am on the road every day I see 2-3 red lights blown, and multiple minor infractions stacked at once (speeding while cutting across 2 lanes, speeding while passing on the right and changing lanes without turn signal, tailgating, driving on the shoulder....) The average driver has gotten so aggressive most police departments could fund themselves if they just put 90% of the force on traffic duty.
My favorite cop in traffic court story was when I caught him lying on the stand and the judge flipped out when I tried to introduce pictures that proved he was lying under oath. 😂
Got a good one for you. A friend of mine when we were teenagers got ticketed for stunting. Cops claimed he was doing 120 in a 50. He used Mathematics and physics to prove the car he was in could not have reached anywhere near that speed after leaving the red light due to the weight of 6 passengers. Cop lost his shit and the Judge was so impressed he dropped the charges.
So? Were you able to show the pictures? What happened then?
Guilty. Judge gets agitated and says "We're not doing this." The entire room was flabbergasted.
WTH, what country was this? USA?
[удалено]
Speedy trial only applies to criminal cases. Traffic cases are almost always civil cases.
You only have “rights” until an authority figure decides you don’t. The right to a speedy trial is a joke. People sometimes sit in county jail awaiting trial for years.
Those people need to assert their right to a speedy trial. They also need an attorney who is willing to work that way.
What if they’re broke? Public defenders normally don’t care at all. In the end, they’re just employees of the state like the DA.
I think the cop not showing up is a violation of your right to cross-examine the witnesses against you. That’s a sub-set of the right to face your accuser.
Similar experience here. I’ve never had a cop show up for traffic court. I’ve had 3 speeding tickets, across 8 years. All dropped
This is accurate. The cop doesn't show up to your first date.
I tried to contest a ticket once. Failure to yield. It was written due to an accident. Legally, it was my fault because I collided with the rear of another vehicle. Though realistically, I didn't break any laws.. I just lost a traction competition. It was sleeting out. The person in front of me slammed the brakes because someone started sliding into their lane (but never did). My car didn't stop. I went to court all dressed up at 16 years old and contested the ticket. The officer wasn't present so I was sent to talk to the prosecutor and was given a continuance. The next court date was the same routine. Contest the ticket and get a continuance. 6 times In a row. Eventually I got fed up, hired a traffic attorney and received a letter that the case was dropped. Then received a letter that I had a "warrant for arrest" for failure to appear in court. It turns out that my municipality assigns a new case number for each continuance and this attorney just assumed the case was dropped based on the original ticket's info. The situation was remedied but I still ended up paying almost 400$ for a muffler ticket and attorney fees
Eh....in Portland, OR I got a speeding ticket AND ticket for a "suspended" license in 2009. Oregon has mandatory insurance forms they send through the mail to random licensed drivers in the state. When I got pulled over, they told me I also had a suspended license. However, plot twist here. We had just bought a new house a couple of months prior. In Washington. I had WSU license plates and my WA license. Best guess is the mandatory insurance paperwork showed up at the old address *right* after we moved. I had changed over the plates and license the week after we took possession of the keys and ended up having to take the paperwork for the house to court to get the suspended license/insurance ticket dropped. The speeding ticket would've been dropped if the cop wasn't there. He was. As it was, speeding ticket fine was reduced for showing up and paid. The kicker? *EXACTLY* one week later after being pulled over on the Ross Island Bridge, I got pulled over on the Washington side of I-205 at Mill Plain and given a ticket...for 4 miles over the speed limit. 2 in one week when I'd never had one prior. THAT cop was a jerk too. Of course, having a black car and being in the left lane probably didn't help either.
Inaccurate, Mom and sister had tickets from same cop, had court same day and he never showed. They both got off
Maybe things have changed, but when I got a ticket many years ago, the cop didn’t show at court. The judge clasped his hands over his head in a victory gesture to me and out I walked, charge dismissed.
This was 15 years ago in NY, the old days were fun *plays boomer music*
Saybinaccurate and prove my point. Cop not showing had nothing to do with it. It was preliminary processing. And the judge has full authority, as long as you plead guilty or no contest. The judge can drop it to no fine. But if you want to contest it, that's a completely different case, and that court date is when the cop shows up. Careful when talking, you'll reveal that you dont know what you are talking about when you dont.
You are assuming that it works the same in all jurisdictions which it doesn’t even if we are talking about just the US. Funny how you berate someone for speaking without knowing what they are talking about while being so wrong yourself. I know for a fact that you can show up for court, have the ticketing officer not there, plead not guilty and have the case dismissed because I have done it. Twice. In two different states. Maybe it works the way you describe where you live or have been ticketed but that doesn’t mean it works that way in the thousands of different courts across the nation.
Someone's one anecdote with no surrounding explanation about their family member getting off with the cop not present says absolutely nothing. That's what I responded to just there. If they had included more detail other than "hey bro you wrong, it happens, yo", I might be inclined to see a difference. In leroy's case, it could have completely been a prelim hearing, and the judge just dropped them because it was a weak ticket for any number of reasons. But with such an absolute lack of any real info, hard to tell. On top of that, 2 family members both getting tickets from the same cop for the same appearance date is a REALLY good indicator that it was a preliminary hearing to begin with.
Mist be dependent on state. In Pennsylvania, you send in the ticket with a plea of guilty and your fine remittance, or plea of not guilty to get a. date for a hearing in response. If the officer doesn't show for that hearing, charges are dropped. If they do show, you come out of that hearing with a finding of guilty or not guilty, or they may let you plead down to a lesser charge.
Wait, so I would have to miss 2 days of work, not just one, to get out of a bullshit $250 ticket? What's stopping them from just giving out illegitimate tickets left and right, knowing it costs twice as much to contest it than to just pay it?
It's probably going to be 3 to 5 days of work you miss to fight a ticket. This is an effort to make people pled guilty and not fight tickets. A poor person can't afford to miss work a rich person loses more by fighting the ticket then the ticket cost.
No, you can notify the court of your intent to contest the ticket by mail. Read the ticket next time. It tells you everything on it.
just called them, they said I have to show up to say I am contesting it.
Not true. Cop doesn’t show is automatic win. At least in Chicago. I got hit pulling out of my driveway, and because I had to pick up my 7yr old child from a party. The cop let me leave the scene. When I returned he handed me a ticket. I was like WTF, and his reply was that “well somebody had to get a ticket”. I printed out that the other driver had to be going well over the speed limit to cause that accident and he finally agreed. He told me he couldn’t take the ticket back but he wouldn’t show up in court so it would just be dismissed. He didn’t show. The judge said dismissed. Not urban legend.
I've had a judge straight up say that they were going to call the cop to see if he was going to make it, and if he wasnt they would postpone my court date. Neither side of this is consistent across the country
So, lots of controversy below, which stems from forgetting (or not knowing) that *it depends where you are*. Some states, it goes like OPs situation, others, no cop = dismissed. My personal experience is no cop = dismissed, but I know that is one county in one state, not everywhere.
It's really not even dependent on state. There is no law that says if the cop doesn't show it gets dismissed that I know of. It's just a bunch of people assuming that because that's what happens some places, that it must be a law. If It's not a law anywhere period, therefore, it's a myth that they have to let you off.
You are sure about that, for all 50 states, and municipal courts within all of them? No law or ordinance that requires an appearance *anywhere*? I should have said that it depends on the state *and the violation/offense*, as that is more accurate.
I have said several places that I'm willing to be proven wrong. However I'm reasonably sure that if some member of a trial isn't available, a judge can continue the case. If you are aware of a law or ordinances that say a trial MUST be held on the day it's scheduled I'd love to see it.
That’s a complete straw man.
Incorrect. Not an urban legend at all. I have had many traffic cases dismissed due to the fact the officer (i.e. the states only witness in most cases) failed to appear.
It obviously depends on location, like everything else. In some states, it's all done by magistrate. The cop that gave you the ticket never shows. In other states, you can get a trial if you go before the judge, and the police have a representative, not the actual officer. I'm not aware that there are any states that have a hard rule where you win if the police don't show up. As far as I know the judge always has the option to reschedule, although he/she also has the option to dismiss, just like in absolutely every other case.
Yeah, so not at all an urban legend. I agree there is no specific rule saying it must happen, but it can and does. Yes I've had judges grant continuances, and it can even depend from courthouse to courthouse even within the same jurisdictions, but they are regularly dismissed when the citing officer fails to appear for trial, and far from an urban legend. Just because a lot of people don't understand the difference between an arraignment and trial doesn't make it untrue.
Yea, so "cop doesn't show, they have to let you go" is just false. It's popular jailhouse lawyer advice, which is why I said urban legend. Maybe that was too strong of wording for you, but I feel like it wouldn't matter because you are looking for a fight anyway.
You notice the lawyers in here bullying anyone who disagrees with what they want people to believe is true versus what is actually true. Had the guy just motioned the court I believe the case would have been dismissed.
As a lawyer, one of the most incredible things about this subreddit is seeing my and other lawyers’ correct answers being downvoted while incorrect answers from non-lawyers make it to the top. I guess I appreciate the job security.
In this case, your answer isn't correct. You would think as a lawyer you'd know the difference between "can happen " and "legally has to happen ".
The guy spewing about urban legend is definitely a lawyer.
Lol I guess I forgot to add the part about getting into arguments with weird lawyers as well
I may be weird, but the guy you are agreeing with is a self described sovereign citizen. And I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can show that "the judge MUST dismiss" is a law anywhere in the country.
Truth is often unpopular
>The "cop doesn't show, you win" is definitely urban legend. In Maryland and Virginia this is actually how it works. I have been in several sessions with a room full of defendants, and if the cop didn't show (which happened for about half the cases), the judge actually suggested that the defendant plead "not guilty" and would let them off (IIRC they had to pay some minot court fees but that's it).
Sure, it can happen. It happens frequently in some places. But I'm still waiting for someone to show me a place where it legally HAS to happen. As far as I know, a judge can choose to continue the case. It's possible that isn't how it works everywhere, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
I’ve had this not happen to me, they didn’t show and it was dropped.
This is not true. In Washington DC if the cop does not show, your ticket gets tossed out. I know this because I would push my court dates months out hoping cops would not show and they never did.
Can you cite a law?
I’m literally telling you what happens in Washington DC and my first hand experience. I think I read somewhere that 50% of the time, the police don’t show up in DC thus resulting in cases being tossed. On one occasion, I had pushed my court date out 3-4 months and to 10:30am, the officer worked night shift. I show up to court, there are 6 of us in a room, and 5 cops. My cop was white so looking at the cops there I automatically knew I was the only one who’s cop didn’t show. Judge let me go and the ticket disappeared. Everyone else stayed. Another time I showed up and no one’s cop showed. The judge dismissed everyone. It was like Oprah giving out free cars.
And I'm literally telling you that just because a thing happens sometimes, or most of the time, or even almost every time, it doesn't mean it HAS to happen. There are lots of things that happen virtually every time, but that doesn't make them law. Saying the judge HAS to let you off because the cop didn't show is a myth. I'll tell you what, next time, when you go to court, say to the judge "the cop didn't show up, so if you don't let me go, I'll have you arrested ". See what happens.
I’m not saying it happens everywhere but to blanket state as you did, it’s just tv and never happens, is incorrect. TV misrepresents a lot but different jurisdictions can have their own policies, DC has this policies, OP’s probably has a different one
Did I say that it never happened? I don't think I did. I Know that it's a very common thing to happen, but that doesn't make it law, and that doesn't help OP any. THIS judge decided not to let him go, he can't fight that because his fool cousin and a bunch of dopes on the internet said, "I got off when the cop didn't show". What I said was that the common jailhouse lawyer advice of "if the cop doesn't show, they have to let you go" is an urban legend. I still maintain that's true because they only HAVE to let you go if there is a rule that says so. I can find no evidence of such a rule anywhere. Can you? If not, then even if the judge lets people go 99.99999% of the time, that doesn't help OP because they can still choose not to let him go.
You said: That's because what you know about court comes from TV. The "cop doesn't show, you win" is definitely urban legend. You later edited it.
It's not urban legend, it's the confrontation clause. The government is charging the defendant with an infraction, the defendant disputes it, it's the prosecutor's burden to prove that the defendant committed said infraction with evidence such as the testimony of the officer who wrote the citation. It is ridiculously improper for a judge to offer a plea deal to someone when the prosecution has not entered any evidence to prove the defendant committed the infraction.
The confrontation clause applies to a "criminal prosecution", not all infractions.
It’s still the states burden to prove their case with evidence such as testimony.
A fine from a ticket IS criminal prosecution.
It depends on the state and ticket, but no, most normal traffic citations are not criminal, and you are not entitled to a jury trial or public defender either.
I have gotten 3 traffic tickets in my life. For 2 of them the cop didn’t show up, and the judge let all of the people who received a ticket from that cop leave without ever having to step up in front of him.
It's not urban legend. There's a lot of places like that. In NYC if the cop doesn't show it gets rescheduled and then a second time it'll be thrown out.
> Not to mention that if you pled guilty, they can absolutely use that against you. "Were you lying to the court then, or are you lying now?" A plea is not testimony, so it can't be a lie. It's a just a declaration of whether you want to contest the charge. Judges will often give someone an opportunity to reconsider a guilty plea. In fact, in some situations a judge can refuse to accept a guilty plea.
A judge will absolutely explain what a guilty plea means and you can't just take it back once it's entered.
[You can withdraw a guilty plea](https://www.justia.com/criminal/plea-bargains/withdrawing-a-guilty-plea/) > If a judge has not yet accepted a guilty plea, the defendant likely can withdraw the plea. They also may be able to withdraw a plea if the judge has not yet sentenced them. However, a defendant may face difficulties in withdrawing a plea once the judge has sentenced them. Withdrawing a plea at this stage may require showing that allowing the conviction to stand would result in a clear injustice. A judge may deny a request to withdraw a plea if it would harm the prosecution’s ability to prove its case or if the defendant agreed to waive the right to an appeal.
Did you even read past the first line of what you posted? The OP already has been sentenced. A guilty plea can be used against you when asking for a new trial, it happens all the time. It requires a person to state on the record that they agree they did the thing. It's nowhere near "just recant".
I am responding to what you wrote, not the OP. By itself, changing a guilty plea cannot result in accusation of "lying" or used as evidence of guilt.
The plea itself? No. The allocution? Yes.
Neither the plea nor the allocution are normally admissible as evidence at trial, as per [Rule 410](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_410)
Not true, see Harris v. New York that link doesn't say what you think it does.
Harris v. New York concerns statements made to police officers and testimony at trial, it has nothing to do with pleas or allocutions. See Kercheval v. United States and United States v. Udeagu.
Cop not showing when you win is not an urban legend. I've gotten out of multiple tickets because the cop didn't show. It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but where I've been no cop and I won every single time. The judge literally said since a cop didn't show case dismissed you're done.
[удалено]
Wow. Reading through these comments, you've got a wide gamut of legal opinions. I think whatever happened is done and history. You signed a plea and accepted a deal (which is probably the kind of deal you were looking for, anyway). Your hope of getting off on a technicality almost certainly went out the window the moment you signed that plea deal. No going back, now. Well, perhaps, technically, you could try to go back on your deal and reopen your case, but the odds of you being back in that same situation are slim to nil, and probably not without considerable expense (time &/or money). If it were me, I'd move on and forget about it. If, however, you find yourself in that situation, again, what you should have done was tell the judge that you contest the ticket and request a speedy trial. Tell the judge that you are prepared to offer your defense right then and there. And you darn well better be prepared to offer a legit defense argument, with supporting evidence, if asked. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing all that would have happened if you had done all that was the judge would have noted for the record that you are disputing the ticket and then set another hearing date - probably 30 to 90 days out. Probably (I don't know for sure) THAT date won't be your trial date, either. You'll be expected to appear, again, and provide some good reason why you are contesting the ticket. You'll likely have a ton of hoops to jump through before you ever actually get to confront your ticketing officer (and perhaps an actual prosecuting attorney?). How much is your time and effort worth to you? If the judge is offering the deal you were hoping to get from the prosecutor, what difference does it make? Take the deal and move on with your life. Or you can fight the system on principle. But if you don't know both the letter of the law and the system inside and out (procedurally), you are likely to lose that battle. And waste a whole lot of time and effort in the process.
It can be like this. Depends on the state. My husband wasn’t yet diagnosed with dementia. Stopped in Virginia, expired tags, expired DL, speeding. We weren’t yet married when he got the ticket. This was late 2020 / early 2021. He dressed in his best suit, we went to court. An expired DL in VA is like having none at all. I was concerned he would not withstand any questioning. The judge asked him to state his name. The judge then said “The officer who stopped you resigned from the force. Case dismissed”. Immediately after he received his diagnosis, I got him a State ID and said “no more driving”. His a$$hole sons said “it would be self limiting when he wrecked his car” - uh what about the other people on the road?
This is why you shouldn't ever represent yourself.
Wow! Reading this is exactly why I am befuddled by people who ask for legal advice on social media.
I click on these out of morbid curiosity because I want to see just how shitty people's legal takes are. As an attorney I'm not going to risk a number of potential ethics violations by offering any legal advice. Which is why the correct answer on every single one of these questions is "talk to an attorney."
I went to an Atlanta court for a potential Super Speeder ticket, and i was an out of state resident. There were like 700+ of us between a few courtrooms. Before the judge came in the court administrators gave us plea options: not guilty, guilty, guilty-bench, NOLO (could only use that it you had a clean record for 5 years), jury, etc. Most of us just said guilty-bench, and the judge did exactly what happened to you, reduced fine and no points. You're good, it's all bullshit. Thankfully, i got reduced to 14mph over for $150 instead of like $1500. I still got points because there is no reciprocation between some states on the points thing; lower fine, still points. I'm squeaky clean these days.
Hmmm, are you sure you went to traffic court or pre trial? Usually you go to pre trial and plead not guilty. Then court day, if the officer doesnt show up you can get your ticket dropped.
I've never heard of a guilty plea being reversed.. The judge offered a plea deal as a last ditch effort & you accepted it.. Should have just said no
Cop doesn't show the first time. Courts also love these things they call a continuance. I remember showing up a court date once, and the whole docket got rescheduled bc the judge had a family emergency. I remember being pissed bc if I had a family emergency, I'd have to choose between not dealing with it or being found guilty in absentia.
“She then gave me attitude” = she then explained she was a magistrate and OP stopped listening when it wasn’t what they wanted to hear?
Neither is obligated to show up. This is generally how traffic court works. The judge gives you options, like paying the whole fine, paying a partial fine, etc.
Life lesson : court doesn’t go how you think it will sometimes. I would take the deal. He met you in the middle.
She gave you “attitude”? Wtf is wrong with you?
I got pulled over years ago for speeding, the cop wrote the ticket to my dad (went off the truck’s registration instead of my license she was holding). We took it to court since she didn’t ticket the right person. Cop didn’t show and the judge just corrected the name on the ticket and said Now pay it. Lesson of the story? Don’t get pulled over in Tallahassee Florida.
The cop showing up thing is a myth, the cop doesn't need to be there and in most cases isn't there. Depending on your state if you keep pushing appeals eventually you will get to a level where he is required. The first appeal in pretty much all states (there may be one or two that are an exception) is an administrative process not a legal process so the typical rules of law don't apply. In fact you are assumed guilty and have to prove your innocent in these administrative hearings.
In my state the specific court that handles traffic offenses is decided by the judge and there is never a DA and cop never shows. If you want to fight the ticket you have to request a court date. Be careful with those plea deals. If you are licensed in a different state that you received the traffic offense then you are punished by your states laws. You will get points regardless if a judge in a different state says you won’t. They offer a plea because they know they can get the money out of you thinking your state will comply with their ruling.
The judge /magistrate has discretion to adjourn the hearing date. Dismissal isn't automatic. I have also seen hearings where the cop didn't show up, but the magistrate dismissed without prejudice, which leaves open the possibility of refiling.
I’m just gonna be the one to say this … you got a fair deal. Unless you believe you weren’t actually speeding/doing whatever caused you to get the ticket, it sounds like you made out just fine.
Pay the ticket, don’t egregiously speed, pay attention when you’re driving, and stop wasting taxpayer money on magistrates and court costs and for cops to come to testify for bullshit when they have laws to enforce.
In some places you go in and it’s a preliminary hearing. You then request trial. Then you need go back again for trial. You still need pay “bond” equivalent to the ticket to be released. They do this as a type of legal manipulation and it can be a total of 5 court appearances to get the final trial. So yes what’s the California rule and only California rule is cop shows up. I beat that by requesting a new court date and it was cops vacation time. Ticket dismissed. The rest of the country has smarter tax collectors.
If the cop doesn't show up in 15 minutes we're legally allowed to speed
What state (I'm presuming US) are you in? Things may have changed, but years ago in MA I was in your exact position, no cop, no charge.
It depends on your state. In my state if the cop doesn't show up as witness to a traffic ticket then it gets thrown out. In the bordering state of NH the cop will always show up unless there is some crazy extreme circumstance to prevent them because they are required to.
If you request a trial date and the cop doesn’t show the ticket gets dropped. If you just showed up to court on the date on the ticket and plead, but you don’t like the results you can appeal the decision with an attorney who can say you had ineffective council. We have this prayer for judgement decision in our laws, and I accepted that which is no points or penalty on normal insurance, but I had commercial insurance and it raised my premium over $1500 a year. I was able to get a lawyer who got that conviction removed and the original charge reduced to improper equipment. No points or insurance penalty.
Did you motion the court to dismiss?
[удалено]
Here in California if the cop doesn’t show it’s dismissed. The “accuser” isn’t there to present his side of the story. Hope is wasn’t a big fine.
Wait, wut? I literally have a J.D. and a law license (albeit in another state), and I have no idea how or why this happened.
Gotta ask for the charges to be dropped. She could’ve told you that, but didn’t like you for some reason.
You need to ask for a dismissal. If you were given an appearance ticket for a trial, you are allowed to confront your accuser. If the accuser is not there, you can not confront them. Sadly some places you do not need to be a lawyer to be a judge and they do play fast and loose with the rules. They also take advantage of people who do not know any better. I know a guy here who got caught trespassing and was arrested for it. His court date shows up and nobody there, not the property owner nor the cop. He asked if it was over, and they said it could be but he could not be found innocent unless he went to trial, so they got him to come back. He came back three times and all 3 no one there, and I guess the judge finally had his fill of it. You could not argue with him though, he insisted he could only be found innocent if it went to trial. In some inbred places they get away with that kind of crap so often they get used to it unless they are dealing with a lawyer. BTW, a lawyer is often times a good investment. May be within a few bucks of the ticket but they can keep your license clean. Another pal, not a moron this time, a work buddy, got a fast car and got a ticket and he was "busy" so he just pled guilty and paid it. I saw him Xeroxing the ticket and the money order off. Urg. I tried to tell him to fight it. I guess he did that a few more times and the last time it was going to suspend his license and that was several K of lawyering instead of $200 bucks, and he was still right at the edge. Much better off and easier and less expensive keeping a clean license clean. Just sayin...
should've said no and you are ready to argue your case. judge would've had no recourse but to drop it
Washington State once gave my wife a speeding ticket and a bunch of information was incorrect on the ticket and they still upheld it. I live in Texas now where they don't even patrol for speeders; too busy shooting civilians I guess
The judge should have been impartial. Period! You should have asked for a dismissal.
I can tell that this is undoubtedly a small-town cop that wrote you. I can also tell you that you got a good deal. Don't get another ticket for a year, and it won't go on your driving record. Small towns will go out of their way to make things as bad as possible if you try to get out of paying them. I've been down this road, figuratively.
This sounds like the shit they pull in podunk towns that write tickets to fund everything. Piperton, TN got in trouble for this.
it was a good deal for you. the judge could have continued the case and thereby forced you to return to court (and probably be found guilty). she was saving your time and the court's by offering you a plea deal. it's neither improper or unusual. contrary to your opinion, the judge was neutral (by definition they are trained to act thusly) and was not acting to your disadvantage. she could have found you guilty herself and fined you the maximum, but that would be contrary to a judge's proper order.
.NAL Took a "no lo contraire" (no contest plea) first offence and paid 90$ total instead of the 250$ ticket. No points. Officer didn't show but didn't have to. Had I entered a plea of "not guilty" I would have been rescheduled and then the cop and the vest cam and me would all be there and the new judge would be annoyed due to the evidence. We were moved like cattle through at sign in we were explained we had 2-3 choices, "no contest/ guilty summary / not guilty" "No contest" would be court fee (50$) + offence type (chart given). (Moving vs non moving, minor involved vs no minor involved, substance involved vs no substance involved, all additional charges on ticket added extra (no seatbelt, non working lights/unsafe travel, distracted, reckless)) "not guilty" we would provide initial evidence then be called another day, if found less than innocent the original ticket + court fee + administration fee (officer needing to testify time) would be ALL levied + full points. If found not guilty no fees, no points, but the success rate w/o a $250-$500 lawyer is <2%... "Summary judgment guilty" was basically for repeat offenders or grievous offensices but looked like it worked like "no contest" but much more expensive. I wasn't offered that, we each were told what our choices were.
The “I always heard” legal strategy, only works 30% of the time. Should have requested all charges be dropped due to no witness & your lost time & aggravation.
This is why you don’t represent yourself in court - Traffic lawyers are affordable and very effective
You plead guilty or no contest at your arraignment. If you had plead not guilty a trial would have been scheduled and if the officer didn’t appear it’s possible the case would have been dismissed.
I think you were at an arraignment?
It’s been my experience (Mo USA) when you show up and plead not guilty, they reschedule a trial date. If the cop doesn’t show then, its normally dismissed at that point.
When I got speeding tickets (which was rare) I would just pay the fine and get deferred adjudication so as long as I didn’t get another ticket it wouldn’t count against me.
This happened to me. No one showed. No cop, no prosecutor, no judge. I had to ask the clerk of the court what was up. The clerk went back and interrupted the judges lunch. The judge came out and said “case dismissed “ and struck the gavel and that was it. No cop, no case. Free and clear.
I ask to have my case transferred to the court of common pleas instead of traffic court for this reason
Just say you’re ready for trial
You were there to pay and not to ask questions. How dare you? Seriously, after Chicago courts it was amusing to see a clerk and a Boston cop who listen to your side of the speeding ticket story instead. After I pointed out ticket description that said they just dismissed it.
The one time I had to show up to traffic court (Cleveland) the cop didn't show up. Judge asked if there was a motion to dismiss, I said yes, walked away paying nothing. Now the officer also was incompetent on multiple fronts. It was a car accident and he let the other driver go before even asking for my version of events. Also didn't have his flashing lights on until I said something - again after the other driver left.
you should have plead not guilty
Because you were only at a plea hearing. If you had pled not guilty then you would have gone to a trial where you have the right to confront your accuser.
Ugh. When you first show up for court it's called an "arraignment" and that's where you are offered this kind of 'deal' if you want to plead guilty. In 95% or more of cases, people plead guilty because the deal is a good one and people, just like police officers, have better things to do than show up in court for a trial, especially over some trivial stuff that can be settled by paying a fine and having the certainty of not getting points on your record. I'm sure you saw that your arraignment only took 2 minutes or less, and depending on the size of the jurisdiction, there were probably at least 30+ other people getting arraigned at the same time. If you think it sucks to have to go to court this one time, imagine being a cop and having to go to court with all the other cops several times a week like this? It doesn't happen. The only people who get a trial are the people who plead not guilty. That's the part where the cop has to show up and make his case.
I went to traffic court in a small city recently and they also didn’t have prosecuter in the court room but in every case there was a sheet ftom the prosecutor on their reccomendation which is what the judge/magistrate used. When called options were take reccomendation, talk to prosecutor (they were down the hall) or contest and have a trial at a later date.
If you drive professionally Always get a traffic lawyer. Costs a few hundred up front. Will save you thousands in the long run. You still end up paying the fine, but no points and a non moving violation. Do not raise insurance. A single speeding ticket increased my insurance by 1200 a year for 7 years.
You got a sweet deal, in a year it goes away.
Also, be aware that no points doesn't mean it won't show as a conviction/violation on your motor vehicle report. As a former insurance agent, I can't tell you how many times people said they were lead to believe if they pleaded nolo that the ticket wouldn't show on their record. It will show and it will affect your insurance rate.
Don't you have the right to face your accuser? I would ask for that.
Did you actually ask for a dismissal? I’ve been there, and as soon as the judge asks for pre-trial motions I immediately ask for a dismissal as the prosecution is not available to present their case; and I am here prepared to argue my case. It’s hard not to grant that motion.
Hold out for a letter of apology- that will show them!
What state? City? Country?
In the case that the prosecutor does not show, you should always make a verbal motion to dismiss on the record. The Judge/Magistrate will usually rule on this during the hearing. Without the prosecution there to object, you may earn yourself a win. Though you may end up incurring the wrath of the prosecution on any subsequent cases you may have.
IANAL - however, If this is your initial appearance in court, it is an arraignment. The judge tells you what you are charged with and asks whether you plead guilty, no contest or not guilty. The prosecutor and cop don't have to show up for an arraignment. In some courts, the prosecutor may supply the judge with a sheet that lists basic, minor charges and the deal they would offer for a guilty plea. If you plead not guilty, your case will go to trial and the law enforcement officer would have to appear then, not at the arraignment. It sounds like the judge had one of those sheets here. You got what in Minnesota is called a "continuance for dismissal". You do pay a fine but if you don't have another, similar offence for a year, the prosecutor rejects your plea and the charge goes away with no points. I negotiated one of these with a prosecutor in MN to get rid of a speeding ticket. What the courts want is people to drive safely. If they can get you to not speed, have insurance, etc. for a year, that's a win.
First thing is never go to court blind. Second is know your rights. Since you were deprived of your 6th amendment right to face your accuser you should have asked the case be dismissed. Best case it would have been, or at the judge/magistrate's discretion it would be continued until the officer could be available. On top of that, you should have exercised your right of discovery and requested the hard copy radar ticket along with calibration records for the specific instrument used. I always ask for the officer's service record on top of it. Fishing never hurts and something may get lost. My last one the radar ticket went "missing" and there was no calibration record on a five year old instrument that the manufacture recommended yearly calibration. The officer had a couple minor reprimands on his record too. At that point my lawyer ask the case be dismissed due to lack of credible evidence and it was. Yes I paid my lawyer more than my fine would have been, but far less the the accumulated increased insurance payments for the next 3+ years.
The internet determined, that was a lie. The internet lies to you. Just because the cop doesn’t show doesn’t mean it’s dropped. Godspeed.
The last ticket I contested worked out in my favor. The court officer just dismissed it. Typically they group all traffic violation hearing first, then move on the their real court cases. Turns out, my case wasn’t in their paper work, and officer had some other issue. He just signed a piece of paper and “erased” my infraction. I definitely have evidence to help my case, luckily I didn’t have to present it to get us dismissed.
The judge can do whatever he wants.
Never go into a room full of lawyers, which is what a courtroom is, without a lawyer.
The cop never shows up for a ticket like that. You have to request the cop be there. The judge wasn't personally offering you that plea deal. That was the plea deal for the offense you committed as a first timer. You took it, the end. Just remember that fact that no one is going to hold your hand and walk you through it unless you pay a lawyer. And something like that isn't worth paying a lawyer for.
The first court hearting listed on the ticket is preliminary. If you are contesting the ticket you will get a new court date. At that time the officer will have an opportunity to show up. Cops don’t just show up automatically to the first court date for all tickets they write. They’d literally live at the courthouse if they did that.
I'm pretty sure (in the US at least) that no one showing up constitutes no evidence being presented. Since it's innocent until proven guilty, no evidence=not guilty.
Broooo I wish I would have known you so I could have helped. I got in an accident that sent two others to the hospital. Their fault not mine, but because they were in the ambulance and I wasn’t I was given the ticket. Traffic court all day I was the very last one to go, but the whole time I was listening to the other lawyers and the verbiage they used to get the tickets dropped. I scribbled some notes down and when it was my turn it was just the officer and I. Judge said how do you plea and I said not guilty on account of there not being any whitenesses present here in the court room. She turned to the officer and asked if he had witnessed the accident, he said no, ticket was dropped.
Too late to fight now you signed it.
Ask for a DWP.
Each side gets to postpone. And if they don't show up the second time, the judge usually dismisses it
As to “if the cop doesn’t show” myth, prosecutors in traffic court know they’re at the bottom of the pile in the district attorney’s office. They have a ton on cases to go through so they will dismiss minor traffic infractions as much as they can. When I was in college in North Carolina, though, I found out that prosecutors are less likely to dismiss if a state trooper wrote the ticket. I got out of a ticket because the trooper got the case continued to the day before thanksgiving. I met with the ADA during a break to let him know I was going home to Pennsylvania for thanksgiving and my witness was also not available that day.
So at least where I lived, the first hearing you go to isn't a "Trial" so nobody has to prove anything. They usually offer you a deal there. If you don't take it, it will go to a real jury trial. If the cop doesn't show up there, it's extremely hard to convict you since there's nobody there to tell that side of the story. That's when it gets dropped. Of course it's a risk because the cop COULD show up and then you may be on the hook for more than the deal.
If it's your first appearance you plea, that's it, in most courts. If your plea is not guilty, they'll then schedule a hearing at a later date at which the cop would be subpoenaed and expected to testify. At that stage if they failed to show up, your case would be dismissed (most of the time). You attended your initial hearing before a magistrate, and plead guilty. Your recourse ended at the admission of guilt in 99.999% of cases. If you'd seriously like to spend your and your grandchildrens life savings to hire lawyers to appeal to overturn your plea, to save the - what - $200 - go for it. Or, take the deferral, don't get in trouble during the terms, and you get no points, no increase in insurance rates, and just pay a small fee.
Don't you have a right to confront any witnesses against you? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right\_to\_confront\_witness
Went to traffic court with my wife in Chicago in 1969 , 50-60 people in a huge court room our baby started to cry and wouldn’t stop. The judge called out for the parent and asked what the ticket was for and dismissed it and told her to leave.
Be better than that. If you did the crime, pay the fine.
If an officer, or any other party to a court case, doesn't show up, such as a cop in a traffic court case, the judge is required to dismiss the case. That does not mean the judge cannot first entice you to plead guilty. So you should never have plead guilty. You should have stood your ground and respectfully plead innocent to the charges. Had you done so, the judge would have dismissed the case. Judges, like cops, are not your friend. They are almost always on the side of the law and cops. The fact that judges almost always let cops off Scott Free or with a slap on the wrist should have clued you in to the mindset of judges.
Who told you a judge would be impartial in traffic court? The judge knows how she gets paid.
Usually, there’s a prosecutor and the deal is take it or come back later. Perhaps the prosecutor was sick?