Traffic Ticket Question

[joseph sugarman]

Shoonra,
You are much to literal. It is okay to drive yourself to the traffic court without a license. However, do not park in the courts' parking lot. Get some exercise; walk a few blocks.

[Shoonra]

I have seen it done, and heard of it being done elsewhere.

It certainly does not violate the Constitution. The due process the offender is entitled to is the very same scheduled court hearing that he ditched. He made his decision not to appear and the consequences of his decision are his own fault.

[Shoonra]

I found instances in several states, including Indiana -- Mann v. White (7th Cir 2002) 41 Fed.Appx 885 -- and New Mexico. California very clearly does this under Cal.Veh.Code sec 13365, and it's been held not a violation of due process -- People v. Bailey (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d.Supp 12, 184 Cal.Rptr 608.

Most cases are unpublished and available only on Lexis or WestLaw.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I found instances in several states, including Indiana -- Mann v. White (7th Cir 2002) 41 Fed.Appx 885 -- and New Mexico. California very clearly does this under Cal.Veh.Code sec 13365, and it's been held not a violation of due process -- People v. Bailey (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d.Supp 12, 184 Cal.Rptr 608.

Most cases are unpublished and available only on Lexis or WestLaw.

Likely linked to immunity extended to a process server.

[SaveUncleSam]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Today (August 21st) the MSN website included an article on Traffic Ticket Myths. It's worth reading ...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...cketMyths.aspx

The myth that I see most often on this forum is about refusing to sign the traffic ticket.

Signing is not an admission of guilt, merely acknowledging that you received the ticket and promising that you will appear in court on the scheduled date.

If you refuse to sign (or you add words that indicate that you really won't show up in court on the scheduled date) the cop can take you in right then and there and you'll be in a courtroom within a few hours. And having indicated that you don't take the court date seriously may be interpreted by the judge that you won't take a mild punishment seriously either.

You pass off this "mythbusters" website as the end-all of this arguement. Red cars and radar detectors are a non-issue. What is at issue is the autograph. "signing" the citation is viewed as agreement with the officer's assessment.
If someone walked up to you off the street and asked you to sign a piece of paper, would you do it? Of course not. You do not know who they are and they have no authority over you. By signing the officer's paper, you are in fact recognizing the officer's authority and jurisdiction over you.
The fact is, no one can make you do anything you do not want to do. The fact that Texas would drag you to jail for not autographing their paper raises a red flag- they need that autograph to proceed.
This stuff is ridiculous. I have had enough with all the harassment and tyranny on us law-abiding citizens so I have stopped presenting a driver's license. If I get pulled over, I will state my right to travel (I do not have the right to drive or the right to operate). The US Supreme Court agrees.

[Shoonra]

Wrong. The motorist's signature on the traffic ticket means only (a) he has received a copy of the ticket and (b) he promises to appear in court on the date set forth on the ticket. I have been told that the ticket forms used in some (perhaps all) states have an explicit statement to this effect above the blank for the signature. The ticket serves essentially as a summons and a release from arrest on his own recognizance while awaiting the court date.

In some states (maybe most) the refusal to sign for the ticket is, itself, an offense and the motorist may be arrested for his refusal to sign, and it is possible that he could be convicted and penalized for the refusal to sign even if he is acquitted on the original traffic charge for which the ticket was written.

Such a law exists, for example, in Florida, as 23 Fla.Ann.Stat. sec 318.14(3), which has been upheld in State v. McDonald (Fla.Supreme 1978) 357 So.2d 405. It also exists in Louisiana as La.Rev.Stat. 32:391(B), and has been relied on in Moss v. Maryland Casualty Co. (La.App. 1980) 392 So.2d 772. In Alabama it is Ala.Code 32-1-4 (which actually says that the cop would take the motorist in unless the motorist signs the ticket promising to the show up in court) and has been relied on in Wood v. Kesler (11th Cir 2003) 323 F.3d 872 cert.denied 540 US 879. In fact, in Alabama, the cop could arrest the driver and bring him to the police station because the cop had forgotten his ticket book and therefore had nothing for the motorist to sign; Daniels v. State (Ala.Crim.App 1982) 416 So.2d 760.

[phreeman2003]

Would a witness qualify as a disinterested party to be eligible to issue/serve summons?

[Shoonra]

Although a traffic ticket serves the purpose of a summons, the state laws explicitly provide for the handling (and handing out) of traffic tickets.
Essentially the cop saw an infraction. This alone entitles him to make an arrest, which he does - the stopping of the car and the questioning of the motorist is a (brief) form of arrest - and, in the case of traffic tickets but not with most other violations, he can also issue a release on own recognizance in the form of the traffic ticket.

As a generality, I advise, do not ignore a traffic ticket because you think you've found some sort of loophole.

[Bailey]

A Traffic Ticket Can Never Serve As A Summons. A Cop Can Never Be The Clerk, The Judge Can Never Be The Prosecutor, And The Ticket Can Never Be A Summons Unless You Allow It To Be So.

There Is No Case Until You Get A Complaint, There Is No Summons Until The Complaint Is Received By The Clerk And Summons Issued, There Is No Case If There Is No Prosecutor.

When You Get A Ticket, It Is Only A Promise To Appear Only. There Is No Complaint So No Summons Can Get Issued. Most Of The Time No Complaint Is Ever Filed In A Traffic Case. If You Want To Sue The Cop, You Must File A Complaint And Get A Summons Issued. It Has To Work Both Ways Because Of The "equal Protection Clause"... Unless You Wave This Process Or Don't Stand Up For Yourself.

In Most Traffic Cases:
- There Is No Complaint
- There Is No Summons
- There Is No Prosecutor That Started The Case
- The Cop Acts As The Clerk With No Complaint Filed
- The Clerk And Judge Act As The Prosecutor Which Is Violation Of The "equal Protection" Clause, There Is No Neutral Party

Some Good Ideas:
- Appear By Special Appearance
- Demand A Verified Complaint By Motion, Do Not Send To Prosecutor Because There Is No Complaint This Goes To The Court
- Demand Dismissal Because Of No Complaint Nor Summons
- Demand Dismissal Because There Is No Prosecutor

Dismissal Is Your Remedy If There Is No Complaint, No Summons Nor A Prosecutor. There Is No Silver Bullet Because There Is No Werewolf In A Traffic Case.

[Bailey]

Steve, the concept is very basic. Most traffic tickets involve no crime, other than people trying to take money from others in the name of safety.

There is no silver bullet. There must be complaint, there must be prosecutor, there must be a summons.

There can be no summons if no complaint was filed with the clerk, there is no prosecutor if there is no complaint, there is no case if all of the above are not completed. Here is a nice one, motion to dismiss and ask the court if there is anyone present that objects to the MOD at the first appearance which should a special appearance.

It's not a trick, it's how the system works. Of course, the system is hindrance on their revenue streaming process. Make them follow it.