[SansRecours]

Well, I guess no one wanted a piece of that discussion. I'll answer the question and keep rolling along.

For review, I am still developing toward answering to the question "What is a traffic ticket?" and secondly, "What is a driver license?" I choose this order of asking the questions but, if one is thinking about obtaining a driver license, then the second question is more important.

Some of the legal eagles herein might be viewing this thread as a little on the simplistic side, but a lot of us, and I am no exception, have a tendency to have to much "issues on the brain" and not enough first hand experience.

I am willing to bet that not one officer in ten knows the difference between a detention and an arrest. One time, a long time ago, I had a run in with a sheriff's department at a hospital, (a panic button on the wall of an observation room that I was installing furniture in became active sending the sheriff deputies responsible for security at the facility into a panic and unnatural need to identify). As I have no license and no SSN the deputies just did not want to believe that I was who I said I was. Well, to make the long intersting situation short. I got hauled into a room and an interrogation developed, culminating in the deputy saying "You are under arrest," and then the reading of my rights upon arrest (silent, attorney, etc.)
When that deputy asked me if I understood I said the only sensible thing at the time. "No, I do not understand," to which I was mocked about not having understanding. Imagine that. I told them that I did have the right to be told the nature and the cause of the accusation, and that if I am under arrest I would like to know why, and if they would please take me forthwith to a magistrate. The deputy then said that I was not under arrest but merely being detained.

The point is that 99% of the police officers out on the highways have NO expertise in the law let alone the nuances of the terminology associated with their daily functions. They do not know the difference between "driving" and "exercising one's inalienable right to ingress and egress." They do not know the difference between "citizen" "resident" or any other word of art. Furthermore, with the amount of, and varying degree of, definitions associated with the three words "person" "resident" and "citizen" and the complete disregard of the nuances of legal meaning by the courts, there is no way ANYONE can have a conversation using those terms and be ceratin of the meanoing the other is trying to convey. Let's be honest-- I have NO IDEA what those words mean any more. I thought I did, but I was speculating.

Oh yeah, I'm answering my own question----

Someone, somewhere entered informatioon on a computer somewhere. This computer information is then made available to a dispatcher, who then relays it to an officer.

To the officer, it is not a fact and he does not have first hand knowledge. At best he gets third hand knowledge. So as evidence, it is hearsay, and hearsay is inadmissible. Since one cannot testify (declare verbally under oath and cross examination) to something without knowledge, it is not testimony.


But hey, guess what ? The officer is going to write me a ticket anyway.

Now that officer can write whatever he wants on that ticket, it will not be a fact, it will not be evidence, and it will not be testimony.

However, he will write one thing on that ticket that will create a PRESUMPTION of the ticket being a FACT, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY.

NEXT QUESTION (a two parter): What is it that the officer writes on the ticket that creates the presumption of fact evidence and testimony?
Why does it create that presumption?