OK, someone has to back me up here. Last night i'm drivin around, and i had my green underglow on. Well i wasn't more than 4 or 5 blocks from my house and i shut them off. Well with it off i drove about another 10-15 blocks on a totally different road in a different part of town and i get pulled over. the cop says "how come you don't have your green lights on?" and i tell em "i try not to have em on when i drive." Well he ends up writting me a ticket for $80. He tells me that he saw me about 4 other times on different nights but never got a chance to turn around to pull me over and that HE considers those the warnings. BUT, this is after i asked officers about the lights before i installed them and they told me this "if you can not see the actual bulb, and it's not red or blue, they are LEGAL" Do you guys think i should go to court with it and see if i can't get it down to a warning being that i had no warning prior to this and after being told it was legal??

 

i personally dont think you should be driving with them on period, but thats my opinion. I dont know much about court issuses, but you can try to take it to court, and hope that he doesnt show up

 

if what those other cops said was true, and they are legal, then i would definetly take it to court, and you will probably win! good luck with it man

 

There's nothing in the law that says you're entitled to a warning for the first offense ("OK sir...since this is only the first time you killed your wife, we're gonna let you go with a warning...just don't let me catch you killing her again!"), and I kinda doubt the cops that told you it was legal are gonna be willing to come down and testify for you. Why don't you take the ticket, find what section of the vehicle & traffic law you (allegedly) violated, go down down to the local library, and get a copy of the V&T law and read it for yourself? It won't guarantee anything, but at least you'll get a sense of what the law actually says, instead of what people are telling you. My own experience has been, it's usually worth a fight. The worst they can do is find you guilty of the same thing that you were thinking of pleading guilty to anyway. And at best...you might get it reduced or dismissed. I got a speeding "76 in a 55" reduced to "running a red light" just by pleading not guilty and taking a 2 hour drive back upstate to fight it in court. And I didn't even have to ask...they made me that offer just for pleading not guilty and then showing up to fight. It was well worth the 2 hour drive

 

Here in nebraska as long as you can't see the bulb they aren't illegal. I'd say take it to court, and good luck!!

Josh

 

if the lights weren't on when he initiate the traffic stop it should be easy to beat in court.

technically you cannot be stopped like that, its like a cop pulling you over and saying he saw you roll through a stop sign last week...you cant do that

 

actually man the person you need to ask is the moderator 88aziroc hes an officer and he can tell you the validity of your ticket.

My personal opinion is that its Bogus, but then again u shoulda never turned them on.

 

you shouldn't have got a ticktet for that, but still if I were you I would take the lights out, imo I have never seen a car that looks good with neon lights..it just screams look at me I shop at AutoZone all the time. No offense if you like then keep it but I think neon lights are extremely gay.

 

I would take it to court, its worth a shot. Thats saying that hes seen you with them before but just didn't pull you over til now.

 

Like 383 said if they weren't on when he pulled you over that's BS, he can't do that. I would take them off also or move the switch, cause if you ever have them on (on the street)after this you'll get busted. They'll be gunning for you. Good Luck man

 

im in the double digits when it comes to tickets, take my advice and GO TO COURT ... like deemax said, it most often will get reduced or null processed(given your situation) if you show up and provide a mature explanation..

the fact that you had them off well before he pulled you over is the best thing i think you have going for you..

btw there is no reducing a 111 in a 45 ticket(my first ticket ever, man was i stupid..) they just look at you like you are a complete moron and take away your license for 6 months...

 

i agree

but, they look like **** anyways IMO

 

if you didn't have them on, he can't give you a ticket for it. the law varies from state to state, so do as deemax said, go to the library or the courthouse and read up on it. if you didn't have them on when you got pulled over, and your research proves that your setup actually is legal, then there's no way you won't get out of the ticket.

 

I hate cops cause they had the sweet-*** B4C goin on!

 

TAKE THAT FUXER TO COURT!

 

Welcome to Minnesota, where cops hate lights :lala:

 

What if a cop see's you speeding but cant catch you due do traffic. He cant see you a week later and give you a ticket.


I don't think........

 

i totally agree with that he cant come back and write u a ticket for something you did weeks ago thats what they tried doing on one of the few times i've been busted for the stereo and the red lights UNDER my dash go and fight it


P.S. i think i'm going to get red lights under mine

seriously i am

 

damn trance am first of all 111 in a 45 all i can say is nice second the rpm only is runnin up to 3k nicer and third that fast when a pebble under a tire can throw the car into a roll and the picture is still good nicest!!!

 

Yeah take it to court. They cant prove that you were driving the car the previous times the car was seen with the lights on. The Judge will be rolling his eyes and cursing the COP under his breath for wasting his time.

 

Ummm...yeah, actually you can. There's no 20 minute statute of limitations on issuing a ticket that says he has to write it immediately or it can't stick. However....
it opens all sorts of ways to get it thrown out. First, check the ticket itself. It has the date, time and location of the alleged violation. If he wrote in the time and place when he pulled you over, he'll either have to admit in court that that's incorrect (and ticket is dismissed) or lie and claim you had them on then (which certainly could happen, although you can remind him that he's under oath, and bring any witnesses with you you might have). If he wrote in a violation date from a week or 2 prior, you ask all sorts of questions...how can he be sure of the time and location...can he produce notes made at the time verifying this...how did he determine that you were the driver at the time...etc. Remember...even in traffic court, you're presumed innocent. Its the cops job to prove you guilty. All you have to do is create enough reasonable doubt in the judge's mind to give you the benefit of that doubt. Don't ever try and fight a ticket on the "you can't do that to me!" basis. Cops rarely screw up so blatantly and do something they actually can't do. Don't focus on how wrong it was of him to do...Focus on how to beat it: create reasonable doubt in the judge's mind of the accuracy and certainty of the information contained on the ticket.

 

Best way to fight a ticket:

Make the officer prove that YOU were driving WHILE a traffic offense was being committed. He can't prove prior drives (with or without your lights on) were driven by YOU.

Since he pulled you over while your lights were off, AND you say he didn't even see you earlier that night with them on (so you know he didn't see you and just follow you for a while, that is okay and legal for them to do), then I can't possibly see how that ticket would stick. Also, you mentioned that he said "how come you don't have your green lights on?" and that makes it sound even more like he didn't see them on that night.

Dude, unless there are other things that happened, you got nothin' to worry about. Post anything else that you remember. And follow these three important tips:

-Do what people recomended and go to your library to look up the laws. Regardless of him being able to prove you were braking a law that night or not, you want to know if your setup is 100% legal, partly legal, or completely illegal.
-Don't take the plea bargain! NEVER!! I did this the first time I got tickets that I could have beaten so EASILY!! I regret it big time. (Although, I got off from over $1,250 or something like that, paid only 50 plus court fees... but my abstract....)
-NEVER act like a child/idiot/addict/bitch in court. Act mature, and try not to argue - try to persuade. Still, don't let anyone push you around. Usually younger cops will admit when they don't have a solid case pretty early once they are SURE you will fight them. Older cops can be tricky sometimes....

 

ahhh yes....listen, the point is when a ticket is mailed to you is what im talking about here. you cannot recieve a ticket a week later for something even in person, for the reasons everyone else has mentioned...such as not being able to determine who was driving the car.

its not legal to have a ticket mailed to you if you were never pulled over. If the cop pulls you over first, and doesnt give you a ticket and then mails you one thats a grey area.

its not legal because its a basically a court enforced order that requires you to do one of 2 things...pay it, or take it to court. if you choose to pay, then its an enforceable court order, which must be served in person. If you choose to fight it then it functions as a subpoena and must be served in person

 

Also, just some other good info for you guys who want to contest your tickets.

-ALWAYS remember, you ARE INNOCENT until they prove you guilty.

-If there is ANY reasonable doubt to your guilt, you are NOT GUILTY.

-Plea bargains are useful when you are fighting multiple tickets and you don't think you can win them all. Make sure you are doing some of the actual BARGAINING, don't just let them make offers. Think of the lawyers as used car salesmen, don't ever let them take control of an argument.

-As much as possible, try to persuade rather than argue. (Unless you have a rock-solid case, then feel free to argue like a maniac.)

-Courts can look the other way if it was a minor offense and/or your first. This can be brought up early in the plea bargain too. (Sometimes.)


Everyone knows how those little stupid ways and discrepancies can get you out of tickets. Those are kind of lame, but stuff like misspelling your name too much, incorrect location on ticket, incorrect time on ticket (must be at least 20-30 minutes off, usually 45+ and then you can complain without worrying), asking about proper training with radar/lidar gun, asking when radar gun was last calibrated, etc. Also the most popular, "Fight the ticket anyway, maybe he won't show up." Thost are actually true, and can sometimes get you out of the ticket(s). But, here are some other things the average person doesn't seem to know:

-If you are ticketed for something that you have, just not on you (current registration, insurance card, etc.), there won't be a problem (unless there is a law that specifically says something like that. Although, I've never heard of any court that will stick it to you even if you had your wallet with your license in it stolen the day before, or something sad like that.)

-The officer doesn't need to be at the arraignment, just the trial. (Although he might need to be at both depending on the area - CHECK LOCAL LAWS. I've never heard of this, though.)

-If you're lucky enough that the officer doesn't show to TRIAL, the judge will probably ask to postpone the trial or something along those lines. I've heard judges usually say something like, "I move for a continuance... do you object to this?" MAKE SURE YOU SAY, "YES! I OBJECT!!" You don't have to yell it, but make sure you say it, then they actually DO THROW OUT THE TICKET!
NOTE: If you don't understand something because of legal terms, IMMEDIATELY speak up and ask what it means. Don't be shy, ask with authority. They HAVE to explain it to you over and over again until you say you understand it.

-If the officer loses sight of you while trying to pull you over, he must prove you were in the same vehicle that he was chasing earlier. (If he got your plates, watch out! Also, they can lie pretty easily here sometimes.) If you turn a corner and he nails you, that won't help. If you turn a corner and make it into a big *** parking lot, park, and leave your car and he sees you walking,
it'll be a hell of a lot harder for him to prove it was your car, much less prove it was you driving it at the time.

-If one officer tags you with a speed detecter, but another one pulls you over (he was radioed to stop you even if you weren't speeding while you were being pulled over), BOTH must show up to court if you contest the ticket. (I believe some area might only require one officer, or will take some sort of written testimoney from one, and only the other must show up - CHECK LOCAL LAWS)

-Officers ARE required to know when their speed detecters were last calibrated, and they must be trained in using them.


A few more notes on speed detecters:
-Radar will track the faster of two objects, so if you were speeding by 15 mph over, and a car flies past you by 45 over the limit, it will read that guys speed not yours. BUT, since you're goin' slower, you're the easier target to pull over.
-Radar guns only operate correctly when people are trained to use them and they are calibrated every few months (or something like that), and other movement WILL throw off readings. I can't give other specifics on radar, I never read up on them since they don't use them here.

-Lidar (Laser) is ACCURATE. (Possible to fight in court, but I can't recall any victories by people I know.)
-Lidar can ONLY BE USED FROM A STOP!! Officers cannot whip out their laser gun while following you - THAT'S when Lidar is inaccurate.
-Lidar MUST be used where there is OPEN ROAD! Trees, light posts, other cars, ANYTHING that can get in the way will throw it off.

(NOTE: I might be wrong on the last two. There could be newer technology that I haven't read about yet, please CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY!! Although, I've never heard of any laser than can be used while moving or with crap in front of it, same with radar but I'm much less certain about that.)


And the 3 that I consider THE MOST IMPORTANT!!:

The officer must prove all 3 things for the court to find you guilty:

1) YOUR car was at the scene of the alleged violation.
2) YOU were operating the vehicle
3) That WHILE OPERATING YOUR CAR, you violated a specific law.


Those three were taken off some website I used a while back. I can't remember what it was called or the address, but it wanted money to join to have full access to information so I forgot about it. Everything else (above) is general knowledge to me since I used to hang out with some ex-cops. I only posted things I know, not things I've heard. Also, as far as I know, everything above is true almost everywhere, and should be 100% accurate for Honolulu, Hawaii.

 

Sorry if something that I wrote above is worded horribly or doesn't make any sense. I'm sort of tired right now, I'll check what I wrote again tomorrow or something.

(I had a long day of going to city hall, to traffic bureau, to dmv, to my house, back to traffic bureau, then back to city hall just before they closed JUST to renew my registration. Not to mention that it cost me over a quarter tank of $2.10 per gallon gasoline AND my entire day of class and work.)

 

Well, everyone, thanks for all the advice. My court date is for Apirl 29th. I'm pretty sure i'm gonna go fight it because i can use that whole didn't know i was drivin thing because i saw the cop right after i turned my lights off and he didn't see my car for a good 13 blocks before pullin me over. But anyways, thanks again and keep the replies coming.

 

microtek_10 - I read, much of the info (but not all the info) given to you.... One thing you are dealing with is this:

PROBABLE CAUSE

Why did he pull you over.... If he did NOT have probable cause, then he is in the wrong (as you can't be pulled over "just for the hell of it"). Bare in mind, that they can "make up" probable cause. When I was 18, I was pulled over (as a potential curfue violator), and the cause was "sir, I saw you swerving all of the road". Cop did his check and let me go with no further word....

But I would start with the probable cause.

Second, the cop admitted he did not see you using the lights that night (if I understood correctly). So he is writing a ticket based on what he saw you do in the past. He had no crime for that night. Not just that, how does he KNOW those other times were definately you (and not some other similiar car, as MANY other people have neons)....

As for the lights, I understand in most states you can not use red or blue as exterior accent lighting (as it "simulates" or suggests an emergency vehicle). So green lighting is fine.
In Ohio, I have never heard of a legallity issue of having non red or blue neons activated while driving.

And the best advise I saw anyone post here. Go to your local library, look up the actual law on the matter. Be prepared to present a valid case. With what I know and you feel, you're in the right, but that's between us. It's the Judge who has to see your side. Do your research and I'm sure you'll be fine.

GOOD LUCK (and tell us how it turned out)!!!!

 

breaking the law is breaking the law, if you robbed a bank last week and you got away your still guilty- cops most certiantly can write you a ticket for seeing you roll through a stop sign last week

 

6cycbird86 - Rolling a stop sign and robbing a bank are bit different. Man hunts are not done for the guy that runs a stop sign (unless he starts a car chase with the cops), but a man hunt would be done for the guy robbing a bank. The severity of the crimes are different....

Last I knew, a cop cannot pull you over a week later for a vehicle moving violation (once again, to pull someone over, you must have probable cause and to use last week's reason is not right). There is a stature of limitations on how long one can be held accountable for certain crimes.

Not just that... But if you're going to give me a ticket for something you saw me do a week ago, they need some kind of proof... Otherwise, how can they be certain it's not the other guy in the area with a similiar ride that did it OR perhaps someone else (like a spouse) was driving the car at the time. It just doesn't hold up to make an assumption you have the right person.

If the neons were illegally used and if the cop was seeing this guy cruising with his neons illegally on last week and did not turn around to pull him over then:
- 1 it was not that important an offense
- 2 the cop had a more presing matter
- 3 he was too lazy and this week needed to meet quota

Even if the neons are illegal, I find it hard to hold that kind of a charge.

But, eh, I'm not a lawyer. The best thing to do is first check the law books on IF it's illegal to operate green neon while driving.... If it is illegal, then research if I'm right or wrong about pulling over on a past offense...

 

here is that law that is written on the ticket:

169.64 Prohibited lights; exceptions.

Subd. 2. Colored light. Unless otherwise authorized
by the commissioner of public safety, no vehicle shall be
equipped, nor shall any person drive or move any vehicle or
equipment upon any highway with any lamp or device displaying a red light or any colored light other than those required or
permitted in this chapter.


Hope this helps you guys out.

 

Well, the word "highway" suggests that it could be legal on local residential streets.... Last I knew a residential street and a highway were 2 different things. And I recall you stated you were pulled over in a residential....

I'm really curious what the judge says about this. Even if you lose the case, you should be no worse off then you were in the beginning.

I'd also check your area's probable cause and the limitation on how long an "police officer" has to ticket you for an offense.

It definately sounds like there was no probable cause and if that is truely the case, that was a violation of your rights.

 

i happen to come from a long line of police officers and know for a fact that in court a judge will belive the officer over you in a snap- all the officer needs to do is say that he knew it was your car because he or she saw your plates and the green lights. it is a possibility that you might be able to get away with saying it was a different car w/the lights but if he says he saw your plates your done-

 

I was assuming that the officer knew his car by the plates already. The cop still has to prove HE was driving it WHILE the lights were on. They got NOTHING on you dude. Fight it.


Edit: Sorry, something was wrong with the computer I was typing on the first time.

 

go to court. period.

 

here's a link to the mn law you supposidly violated http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/169/64.html

 

Not to beat this to death, although I think we've already done that...
You guys gotta understand the clear distinction between what the cop CAN do, and what may or may not be the smartest thing for him TO do. He most certainly CAN write a ticket a week later. The only legal requirement is that he personally witnessed the infraction (thats why you cant go find a cop after seeing someone run a red light and get the cop to write a ticket...the cop has to see it himself). Now, I don't think that's particularly bright of the cop, because it leaves all sorts of defenses open for you to use in court (can you prove it was me? Can you be sure of the date and time? Etc..as talked about above). It may seem like a minor point... but when you deal with the law, its those minor points that matter. If you go in to court and base your whole defense on "Its not right! He wrote it a week later!!",,,,you're gonna lose. Because he CAN write it a week later. And the judge isn't even going to get into the whole "Did you do it or didn't you" issue...he's gonna hear your defense, he's gonna rule that your defense is invalid, and you're gonna be found guilty. Boom. Next case. Been there, done that, and learned the hard way.
And to clarify a few things said in the last few points... "probable cause" for a traffic stop? No such thing. Random stops have been upheld on appeal for years. Probable cause needed for criminal offenses, yes. But not motor vehicle infractions. And in V & T law..."highway" is defined as any public thoroughfare. There's no distinction between what you and I consider highways and residential streets. Again, it seems like minor stuff, but that's what gets ya. If you went in and argued "The tickets no good. I was on a side street, not a highway" you lose. Even if you didn't do what it is you were accused of doing. Not because you were guilty. Because you mounted an ineffective and incorrect defense.
That's why lawyers make the big bucks. Because they know what to argue, and what to not argue. Just ask OJ.

 

If that's the section of the law that's claimed to be violated (and your ticket will clearly state what section), then it looks pretty clear. No colored lights. Period. I wonder if this is a moving violation or just an equipment violation. If its equipment...I wouldn't even bother to fight it. The fine is probably cheap, and it won't go on your driving record. You might stand a chance fighting against a moving violation, by creating enough doubt in the judge's mind as to whether you were the driver at the time or not. But if its equipment...I can see it now...Judge: "Let's cut to point here. Are you the owner of the vehicle in question? Is that vehicle equipped with colored lights? Yes and yes? Ok. Thank you. Guilty" Read the law carefully. You don't even have to be driving the car. It's a violation just to have them on the car. Besides which, as a few other guys said, they do look gay anyway

 

If the cop writes a citation for something that happened a week previous and he didnt pull you over at the time he claims the infraction took place he has about zero chance of winning in court unless he lies and says he did pull you over at the time of the infraction.

if hes dumb enough to even show up in court for that against me, he had best have a detailed testimony prepared on why he didnt stop the car at the time of the infraction, and PROOF that i was driving the car.

thats just about impossible. Ther is no way he can prove you were in the car, and him saying "ya it was him" wont fly. will the judge believe the cop before you? yes, but thats not the issue, because certain things require proof, and you or I being the driver is one of them.

this is because the citation isnt issued to the car, its issued to the driver, no matter who owns the car

 

Deemax: it doesn't matter if i own the vehicle or not. It is LEGAL to have all sorts of neons and extra lightin on your vehicle. It's only illegal to have the vehicle in motion with them on. And i know for a fact that the cop CANNOT prove i was drivin at the time the lights were on nor did he see my plates. I dont' know about you guys but how many ppl can say they can read a plate from 4 blocks away at night while lookin at the side of the car? i know i can't.

 

my cousin lives in minnesota and from stories i hear, cops really have their way with you for neons up there. good luck at the trial.

 

I guess you'll find out for sure on April 29th, right?

Don't get me wrong, I think you got a bum deal. I'm just saying the only way to beat anything in court...anything...in any court...is to make sure your argument is focused, valid, and addresses the law.

I look forward to your April 30th post. Good luck.

 

Well Deemax i'm still not 100% positive i'm going to court. I want to fight it but i don't know if i wanna risk gettin the fine along with court fees and all that other sh*t. Cops around here are a bunch a fat retards. The only thing they do is watch me and my friends cuz we drive nice cars. it's stupid. so like i said i don't evne know if i'm gonna go to court.

 

was he following you the ENTIRE time between when he saw you with your lites on and when he stopped you? If he wasn't, that is a flat out illegal pull-over, but if he was behind you he could reason that he was just waiting to pull you over until you were on a safe road.

BTW - if you are in a small town, in my experience, they don't take ****. Either have a solid case or forget it. It's like your being tried for something serious. when i tried to fight my 75 in 55 ticket they had a direct examination of the cop including his life history and how you go about calibrating a radar gun, (Kind of interesting actually).

 

Subd. 3. Starting parked car. No person shall start
a vehicle which is stopped, standing, or parked unless and until
such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

 

Subd. 8. Hand signals. When the signal is given by means of the hand and arm the driver shall indicate intention to **** off other drivers, by extending the hand and arm from and beyond the left side of the vehicle in the following manner and these signals shall indicate as follows: (1) Some one about to pass you: extended arm and hand, extended middle finger upward; (2) Some one Takes your parking spot: hand and arm extended upward to the face under chin, stop and pull out fast

 

In tune with exterior lighting... If they wanna claim that the neons in use while driving are a distraction, I'm sure you, like I have people in vans with running board lights. Those could be considered an equal distraction (they are not required lighting while the vehicle is in motion, yet I've seen many of them in use while a van drives past me).

I know that won't fit into a case arguement (and if it did, I'd be surprised).

As for going to court or not, if you have the time, do it. If your state is like Ohio, it does not matter if you see the judge or not, you still pay the same exact court fee. Kinda crumy, but true. I've had my share of tickets and I always had to pay the court fee (and in most case, I did not have to stand in front of a judge). Besides, you have created a great debate here amongst us non-lawyers, you have to go

I feel if you respectfully state:
1. - The officer did not provide valid reason for Probable Cause to pull me over. He made an assumpsion that I was the same driver in the same car he saw a week ago and never stopped me at that time. I was not in any violation of the law at the time I was pulled over.
And as said earlier, the citation is given to the driver of the car to correct. If my girlfriend drives my Grand Am and the muffler has a hole in it, she would be issued a citation to have 72 hours to correct it. But that is NOT a moving violation and not go against her driving record (but the vehicle with the citation has to be presented at the police department for inspection it has been repaired).
2. - You claim your law on extra exterior/interior lighting on a car is similiar (if not identical to what I know of in Ohio). The neon lights are green, not red or blue (which could assume a possible emergency vehicle). They are a non-emergency color.

If you had a local shop install the neons, you may want to ask them what they know about neons and the law. Most shops know at least what the law's concern is with their product. No those folks are not lawyers, so what they say is NOT gospel or court worthy (other then the fact, you could also state "I had the neons installed at such-a-such shop and when I inquired if these were legal or not, they believed they were", please note, like I said, perhaps not note-worthy, but could be handy to know).

And who knows, the judge may also look at the case and laugh at the officier for wasting the time with this.... And maybe the officer has a history of writing bad/stupid citations....

I know my dad took a ticket to court, officer asked him if he had a "F**king speedometer" and he said he only has a "speedometer". The cop claimed he was doing 15MPH over the limit. My dad states if anything, he was doing 5, if that. He also brought to the judges attention the fact he felt that this cop was very offensive by using "f**k" for no reason in addressing his violation. The judge ended up throwing the case out. The cop was not even at the hearing and my father also learned afterwards that cop has had a hostory of being written up for accounts such as verbal abuse.

It's a lot of what-ifs and I have typed WAY too much... Please, go fight it, right or wrong, you have us to turn to
I still stand by that if you are respectful, have some notes to present an EDUCATED case (and perhaps find if there is a way to get a copy of the report the officier filed on the citation). You may be surprised. But hey, none of us are lawyers (at least I hope not)....

 

He can not prove it was you he saw previously. If you were not issued a warning or a summons, then he can not prove it.

 

I am not sure about other states, but that happened to a friend of mine. Off-duty cop saw my friends Roush Mustang hauling butt down the highway well past the 55mph limit.
Cop was able to get the plates since the plates read "Stage 2" which is easy to remember, he also notices that the driver has glasses on.
Off-duty cop and uniformed cop go to my friends house the next day. My friend who owns the car wasn't driving it and told the cops that. Cops asked who was driving and my friend was coersed (sp?) into telling them who was driving the car
My friend is from Kuwait and is here with a Student VISA.
So his friend gets slapped with a 155 in 55.
At first he got flamed for ratting out his friend, but him being a foreigner from the middle east, and words like deportation and jailtime. etc... He had no choice.
He did pay for the lawyer, fines, and court cost though and I believe it got reduced to something not as bad as 155 in a 55.
Oh, and he was in the car too when they were speeding.

Another one of my friends got real lucky with a 100 in a 55 a few months ago.
With a little help from an electronic speedo box that has 2 settings 100% and 50%. box was needed to correct for the 4.10 gears, so I programmed it to show normal speed in one mode and 1/2 speed in the other mode.
He took the car to the speedo calibration shop with the switch in 1/2 mode, got a receipt saying it was off.
Went back the next day with it in normal mode and got a receipt showing that it was fixed.
Goes to court with lawyer, gets Reckless driving reduced to improper equipment. $57 in fines and court costs and $500 for the lawyer (normally it's $1000, but my friend with the Stage 2 knows the law firm pretty well ). Not too bad considering my brother got caught racing, 113 in a 55. $500 fine, 30 days jail with 26 suspended and 90 days suspended license.
My brother couldn't afford a laywer, but his friend that he was racing got a lawyer and he saw the judge first.
Judge gave him the fines and sentence. My brother comes up and the judge gave him the same fines and sentence.

I haven't had a ticket since 98 I think I am doing pretty good.

 

FIGHT IT!!

He HAS to prove that it was you driving with the lights on.
You don't have to prove that you weren't.

Was it illegal in your state? Almost certainly.
Can an officer ticket you after the offense? Sure can.
If you fight the ticket, will you win? Hell yes.

FIGHT IT DUDE!!

 

By the way, I've only paid for one ticket so far, but the court fines were negligible. I've had something reduced to $50 from $150 or about that, plus court fees and some kind of drivers education fee or some crap like that. Court fee for one ticket was $20 and $7 for the other thing, so only $27.

I have no idea if it's based on the number or tickets or the cost or the type of offense, though. And I'm sure it's different in different states, cities, and counties.


Also, I just reread your first post saying something about a cop saying they were legal. DON'T trust what cops say. They don't always know the exact laws. I've talked to officers, and they pull out stupid little books with all the traffic laws so they don't have to memorize every little word. I've actually read some of it, and it was different from what other cops have told me from "off the top of their heads."

So, if anyone wants to do something to their car that they think might be illegal, ask a cop if you want, but GO READ your local laws!! Cops can be WRONG!