Got a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, BUT I was wearing one.

[1badsilversvt]

Must be "end of month" quota filling time!

 

[46-062]

Must be "end of month" quota filling time!

Lately, it's been City Council is looking a a big fat deficit and tells the chief to step up enforcement for the safety of our children time.

 

[46-062]

i can understand you want to fight it. its not a murder trial. the angel of the sun in proportion to the venus orbit while on corner "A" - - all that is nice. sounds like a kid fresh out of lawyer school and wanting to change the legal system as we know it.

Are you nuts? Changing the legal system as we know it? Just because you always plead guilty and take it up the ass doesn't mean the rest of us are willing to do so. Grow a set of balls and fight your next ticket

 

[FordSVTFan]

Take a photograph of you in your car at that exact location at the exact same time of day with your seat belt on. Wear the same clothes. Take the picture from the exact location the cop was standing. Use a DSLR camera with a 50mm EQUIVALENT lens. 50mm is supposed to be the closest to what the human eye sees in terms of zoom and field of view.

Edit. Get the compass orientations and distances from a city engineering map of the intersection and take the photos on a shopping center parking lot. You don't want to be found not guilty only to have the judge fine you for no seat belt photos on a public street.

Please note different DSLRs have different crop factors. A pro model Nikon or Cannon will have a sensor the same size as a 35mm film camera, so a 50mm lens = 50mm. The less expensive Nikon DSLRs use a smaller sensor with a 1.5 crop factor, so a 33.33mm lens = 50mm. Less expensive Cannons have a 1.6 crop factor, so a 31.25mm lens = 55mm. Experiment with a zoom lens and read the EXIF file for your test photos to confirm where to set the lens.

Do some internet research to confirm 50mm = what the human eye sees.

Can you see your seat belt in the photos? How was the weather that day? Did the police officer have the sun in his eyes? How much traffic was there between you and the officer? How much time did the officer have to observe you? Was your driver's window up or down? It has factory tint. Do you have extra tint? Can the officer see through tint? What color is your seat? What color is your seat belt? What color was the shirt or jacket you were wearing? Are those colors all the same or very close? Can the officer really distinquish a gray seat belt against your gray shirt from 50 - 100 -150 feet? Could the officer see of your seat belt was buckled? Could the officer see if the seat belt was across your upper pelvis? Isn't it true that the only portion of the belt visible between the door line or dash board (depending on angle and the upper seat belt mount? Exactly how much of the seat belt is visible? (Measure it and calculate the square inches.) What was the officer doing standing in the intersection? Was he occupied with something else? How about keeping an eye on traffic so he wouldn't get run over as a start? He wasn't able to devote his vision solely to you during the time you were in his field of vision, was he?

How old is the officer? When was the last time he had an eye exam? Does he wear corrective lenses? Is he far sighted or near sighted? The older the better for you. You might want to research typical eyesight degridation in both near sighted and far sighted people as they age. Does the officer think his eyesight is better than INSERT NAME AND MODEL AND PRICE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE PRO DSLR AND PRO LENS USED FOR PHOTOS HERE camera and lens?

What are the officer's shooting scores? Are the latest scores higher or lower than previous qualifications. If lower, is it his eyesight?

Do you keep the seat belt in the plastic guide mounted to the rear of your seat? I don't,. Did the officer see no seat belt in the guide and presume you were not wearing your seat belt.

Let me repeat that. You didn't have the seat belt running through the holder so naturally the officer presumed you weren't wearing it, didn't he? You might want to take pictures of you wearing the belt passed through the holder and routed around it. If the judge asks why would you not use the plastic guide, it makes the belt rub on your neck and it's a pain in the ass to tilt the driver's seat forward. From 50 - 100 -150 feet, wouldn't it be natural for the officer to presume your belt wasn't on if he saw an empty seat belt guide above your left shoulder?

What the officer saw was you pulling the upper portion of the belt away from your neck. Because you didn't have the belt passed through the guide, HE PRESUMED YOU WERE NOT WEARING IT. Which motions required to put the belt on are the same as rtaking it off. You did have to take it off to reach your wallet in your back pants pocket and to reach the registration in your glove box, right?

So, if I understand correctly:

Officer Partner sees a belt guide with no belt passed through it and presumes you are not wearing a belt.

He tells Officer in the Car to pull you over.

Officer in the car effects a traffic stop and sees you removing your belt through his windshield and your rear window. (How far back was the police car?)

He didn't see you without a belt at the intersection. He believed Officer Partner. Officer Partner doesn't lie. His eyesight may be bad, the distance may have been too great for him to really see or your belt wasn't passed through the guide, but he doesn't lie. Officer in the Car had no reason to believe Officer Partner didn't see what he thought. What is the FIRST thing a driver does after stopping his car and turning off the engine? TAKE OFF HIS BELT. Officer In the Car thought he saw you putting on your belt. He never saw you without a belt and combined the information he got from Officer Partner and naturally thought he saw you putting on the belt when, in fact, you were taking it off in to access your wallet and registration.

I would love to see this happen in traffic court. If there is a State Attorney prosecuting the objections would be relevance, foundation, speculation, and call for a conclusion.

The officer shuts it all down by saying his eye sight is fine and saying he saw what he saw.

If there is no Prosecutor, the judge would grant some leeway but would not get into all that testimony as the defendent would never be able to lay an appropriate foundation and the judge would then shut that line of questioning down.

You arent going to be permitted to go on a fishing expedition and use supposition without actual testimony to back it up.

 

[46-062]

Ah, that wasn't a script. It's a bunch of ideas written in a few minutes.

I'd think if the judge couldn't determine seat belt usage from high resolution photos, both the eyesight and judgement of the officer would be relevant.

Close up photos showing the defendant wearing his seat belt and an empty seat belt guide wouldn't be allowed?

Are you implying questions about where the officer was standing, where the OP was, what the officer was doing in the middle of traffic, whether the officer was wearing sunglasses, if the officers can remember the color of clothing, seat belt and interior, etc. would be allowed?

You're not suggesting you couldn't ask the officer if he was wearing sunglasses, followed up by asking if he knows how much light they transmit? I've asked those two question (when I knew the officer was wearing sunglasses) every time in traffic court. You're not suggesting you couldn't ask the officer if he knows how much light his sunglasses block? Same for the automotive glass the defendant was behind?

 

[Great Asp]

Obviously i'm going to have to pay it. I'm just expressing my concerns over the intra-web. lol.

I'm not sure you will. The question is how bad do you want to stand up and shout?

As the above poster said, get the details. I would first ask the prosecutor what your rights are in the court that would adjudicate your ticket. You may be better off getting a lawyer out of the shoot.

But deal with the court in a proffesional manner, present what you have, and tell the judge it's not the money, but that the police did not see a crime.

The reality is, that if the court has to spend more time or money than the ticket is worth they will give up.

E

 

[Stanley]

The officer shuts it all down by saying his eye sight is fine and saying he saw what he saw.

So a cop could write anyone a seatbelt ticket even if they are wearing one and there is just nothing you can do about it?

 

[46-062]

So a cop could write anyone a seatbelt ticket even if they are wearing one and there is just nothing you can do about it?

No, no you can't. And if you ask even one question about a cop's eyesight the State Attorney will make a motion to exclude all other questions.

Who the hell do you think you are? This is the United States of America! You can't show the court 11" X 17" high resolution photos that can't clearly show whether or not you're wearing a seat belt and then question the cop's eyesight.

And, if you even think of asking that cop what he was doing standing in the middle of that intersection ducking traffic while trying to do something else while he supposedly saw you commit a seat belt violation.... Well, sir that will earn you five days in jail for contempt!

 

[svtcop]

Take a photograph of you in your car at that exact location at the exact same time of day with your seat belt on. Wear the same clothes. Take the picture from the exact location the cop was standing. Use a DSLR camera with a 50mm EQUIVALENT lens. 50mm is supposed to be the closest to what the human eye sees in terms of zoom and field of view.

Edit. Get the compass orientations and distances from a city engineering map of the intersection and take the photos on a shopping center parking lot. You don't want to be found not guilty only to have the judge fine you for no seat belt photos on a public street.

Please note different DSLRs have different crop factors. A pro model Nikon or Cannon will have a sensor the same size as a 35mm film camera, so a 50mm lens = 50mm. The less expensive Nikon DSLRs use a smaller sensor with a 1.5 crop factor, so a 33.33mm lens = 50mm. Less expensive Cannons have a 1.6 crop factor, so a 31.25mm lens = 55mm. Experiment with a zoom lens and read the EXIF file for your test photos to confirm where to set the lens.

Do some internet research to confirm 50mm = what the human eye sees.

Can you see your seat belt in the photos? How was the weather that day? Did the police officer have the sun in his eyes? How much traffic was there between you and the officer? How much time did the officer have to observe you? Was your driver's window up or down? It has factory tint. Do you have extra tint? Can the officer see through tint? What color is your seat? What color is your seat belt? What color was the shirt or jacket you were wearing? Are those colors all the same or very close? Can the officer really distinquish a gray seat belt against your gray shirt from 50 - 100 -150 feet? Could the officer see of your seat belt was buckled? Could the officer see if the seat belt was across your upper pelvis? Isn't it true that the only portion of the belt visible between the door line or dash board (depending on angle and the upper seat belt mount? Exactly how much of the seat belt is visible? (Measure it and calculate the square inches.) What was the officer doing standing in the intersection? Was he occupied with something else? How about keeping an eye on traffic so he wouldn't get run over as a start? He wasn't able to devote his vision solely to you during the time you were in his field of vision, was he?

How old is the officer? When was the last time he had an eye exam? Does he wear corrective lenses? Is he far sighted or near sighted? The older the better for you. You might want to research typical eyesight degridation in both near sighted and far sighted people as they age. Does the officer think his eyesight is better than INSERT NAME AND MODEL AND PRICE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE PRO DSLR AND PRO LENS USED FOR PHOTOS HERE camera and lens?

What are the officer's shooting scores? Are the latest scores higher or lower than previous qualifications. If lower, is it his eyesight?

Do you keep the seat belt in the plastic guide mounted to the rear of your seat? I don't,. Did the officer see no seat belt in the guide and presume you were not wearing your seat belt.

Let me repeat that. You didn't have the seat belt running through the holder so naturally the officer presumed you weren't wearing it, didn't he? You might want to take pictures of you wearing the belt passed through the holder and routed around it. If the judge asks why would you not use the plastic guide, it makes the belt rub on your neck and it's a pain in the ass to tilt the driver's seat forward. From 50 - 100 -150 feet, wouldn't it be natural for the officer to presume your belt wasn't on if he saw an empty seat belt guide above your left shoulder?

What the officer saw was you pulling the upper portion of the belt away from your neck. Because you didn't have the belt passed through the guide, HE PRESUMED YOU WERE NOT WEARING IT. Which motions required to put the belt on are the same as rtaking it off. You did have to take it off to reach your wallet in your back pants pocket and to reach the registration in your glove box, right?

So, if I understand correctly:

Officer Partner sees a belt guide with no belt passed through it and presumes you are not wearing a belt.

He tells Officer in the Car to pull you over.

Officer in the car effects a traffic stop and sees you removing your belt through his windshield and your rear window. (How far back was the police car?)

He didn't see you without a belt at the intersection. He believed Officer Partner. Officer Partner doesn't lie. His eyesight may be bad, the distance may have been too great for him to really see or your belt wasn't passed through the guide, but he doesn't lie. Officer in the Car had no reason to believe Officer Partner didn't see what he thought. What is the FIRST thing a driver does after stopping his car and turning off the engine? TAKE OFF HIS BELT. Officer In the Car thought he saw you putting on your belt. He never saw you without a belt and combined the information he got from Officer Partner and naturally thought he saw you putting on the belt when, in fact, you were taking it off in to access your wallet and registration.

Where on earth are you getting that the intersection is between 50 to 150 feet??? What do they drive where you are from???

Typical lane width on undivided roadways are between 8 and 13 feet. According to the OP's own diagram that would make the officer needing to see what? 16ft to at max 30ft away?? Go measure out 30 feet in your backyard and take a look.

A windshield allows more than 70% light pass through. It's more like 90-95%

The angle the op describes would possibly allow the officer to look through the drivers side window.

Your argument is severely flawed.

 

[Black*Death]

Fight it only and I mean only if you were truly wearing your belt..if not stop wasting everyone's time and pay it...

I wouldn't just settle and pay a fine because that is the 'easiest' route...Cops are human and make mistakes...a judge realizes this and may side in your favor

 

[46-062]

Where on earth are you getting that the intersection is between 50 to 150 feet??? What do they drive where you are from???

Typical lane width on undivided roadways are between 8 and 13 feet. According to the OP's own diagram that would make the officer needing to see what? 16ft to at max 30ft away?? Go measure out 30 feet in your backyard and take a look.

A windshield allows more than 70% light pass through. It's more like 90-95%

The angle the op describes would possibly allow the officer to look through the drivers side window.

Your argument is severely flawed.

The last time I had a cop on the stand in traffic court who was as **** sure and inattentive as you, the judge told him he would be pounding a beat if he ever wrote another ticket like the one he gave me. The officer told the judge the California Highway Patrol doesn't have foot patrol. The judge said, "Wanna bet I can change that with one phone call?"

Jesus Christ. My argument is a collection of ideas for the OP to explore. I don't know what intersection he was at and I don't know if his illustration is to scale. Look at some of the intersections in Irvine, California. Use the measuring tool on Google Earth.

I didn't bother to research the maximum allowed windshield tint in the OP's particular location nor if his windshield has any additional legal tint.

What if the driver's window was up?

And, if you presume I'd go to court without doing a bunch of research and knowing the answer to or have a secondary line of questioning for every question I ask, you'd be wrong.

 

[Stanley]

...

How would you go about fighting one?

 

[46-062]

How would you go about fighting one?

Nobody dares to fight a ticket issued by SVTcop!

 

[FordSVTFan]

Ah, that wasn't a script. It's a bunch of ideas written in a few minutes.

I'd think if the judge couldn't determine seat belt usage from high resolution photos, both the eyesight and judgement of the officer would be relevant.

Close up photos showing the defendant wearing his seat belt and an empty seat belt guide wouldn't be allowed?

Are you implying questions about where the officer was standing, where the OP was, what the officer was doing in the middle of traffic, whether the officer was wearing sunglasses, if the officers can remember the color of clothing, seat belt and interior, etc. would be allowed?

You're not suggesting you couldn't ask the officer if he was wearing sunglasses, followed up by asking if he knows how much light they transmit? I've asked those two question (when I knew the officer was wearing sunglasses) every time in traffic court. You're not suggesting you couldn't ask the officer if he knows how much light his sunglasses block? Same for the automotive glass the defendant was behind?

You clearly do not understand the judge's role. The judge does not substitute his opinion for that of the witness, he determines witness credibility and evaluates their testimony objectively, not in comparison to his own.

The judge would not allow your full series of questioning once the officer testified that he saw what he saw. If you used your discovery right to find actual information that could impeach the officer, it would be allowed if you could create the proper foundation. But, your questioning about sunglass tint, et. seq. would not continue.

 

[FordSVTFan]

So a cop could write anyone a seatbelt ticket even if they are wearing one and there is just nothing you can do about it?

You could use proper procedure and evidence to prove your case. But questioning about non relevant minutia doesnt go over.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Nobody dares to fight a ticket issued by SVTcop!

I believe everyone should fight tickets that they believe were issued unjustly. That being said a courtroom is run on rules of procedure and evidence and you dont get to go fishing or ask irrelevant questions which waste the court's time. When a point can be made with one question you dont get to prolong it with a dozen.

 

[RDJ]

Great write up!

3/4 of the crap in that "great write up" is irrelevant, immaterial and the judge will laugh him the entire time he is deciding how much to charge the op.

 

[46-062]

You clearly do not understand the judge's role. The judge does not substitute his opinion for that of the witness, he determines witness credibility and evaluates their testimony objectively, not in comparison to his own.

The judge would not allow your full series of questioning once the officer testified that he saw what he saw. If you used your discovery right to find actual information that could impeach the officer, it would be allowed if you could create the proper foundation. But, your questioning about sunglass tint, et. seq. would not continue.

Aren't you a Junior G-Man Fed/fledgling lawyer? Your use of et.seq. intimidates me!

My experience in traffic court is no different from my experience in Superior Court: Judges allow people who appear in pro per a lot of leeway.

How else could a dolt like me not only win in traffic court, but suing one of the largest real estate brokerage firms in the country with nothing more than a copy of How to Sue in California Supreme Court for $25,000 or More (Nolo Press)?

Tell me that a legal expert like you could not lay a foundation for one or more of the points I used in the construction of a decent defense. If you couldn't, your client would be better off showing up in pro per.

 

[46-062]

3/4 of the crap in that "great write up" is irrelevant, immaterial and the judge will laugh him the entire time he is deciding how much to charge the op.

Hasn't happened to me yet. I'm sorry your experiences in court didn't go as well as mine.

 

[RDJ]

Hasn't happened to me yet. I'm sorry your experiences in court didn't go as well as mine.

Hahahahahaha .. you have no idea how my court appearences have gone. but nice try.