It finally occurred. You were a little late to a meeting in Bellevue, traffic was heavy, and you did not think anybody would recognize. So you cranked up the speedometer a tiny bit and started making your way to that meeting. Until you noticed the flashing lights in your rear view mirror. Now you have got a cheap NY traffic lawyer. You don't want to pay it if you do not have to, and you heard that the best way to beat a speeding ticket is to contest it. So that you did. But you have to determine whether or not to subpoena the officer, and you are not certain what to do.
Contesting a speeding ticket is not a difficult task. Whipping a speeding ticket sometimes is, but if you've the right information it's a possibility. And subpoenaing the official is a big decision in a traffic ticket case. In place, like Seattle in the example above, if you decide maybe not to subpoena the police officer, the report is normally entered into evidence by the prosecution. This means the court only will examine the officers report (which can be signed under oath) and make a decision based on any proof and that you present to the court.
But when should you subpoena the officer and when should not you? Let us speak about when you should not subpoena the officer first. If you look at your ticket, or the officer's ticket, which will have his published report on it (you should always ask for this information - the prosecutor has an obligation to give it to you if you ask) and you can clearly see that anything is wrong that will permit you to beat the traffic ticket, don't subpoena the officer so they have an opportunity to correct it.
For example, in my Bellevue traffic ticket example above. Let's say the authorities officer, for whatever purpose, writes down the highway in his report. Let us say you were crossing the I-90 bridge from Seattle to Bellevue and he believed you were on 520, so he wrote that down. You'd not want to subpoena the officer to come in and correct that declaration on his report. You would just want to point out to the judge that contrary to the officer's report you were on the I-90 bridge and could not happen to be on 520 as recommended (in a way this is similar to an alibi). If you've a friend that was with you they may come and testify to that at the same time. In that case planning against the ticket and not the officer is way better because the testimony (the speeding ticket) conflicts with the specific facts. The prosecutor wouldn't be able to prove by a variety of the evidence that you're speeding on 520 since the ticket suggests.
You should subpoena the official, nevertheless, when you need to point out all the issues he forgot to mention on his ticket. As an example, let us say you were driving in really heavy traffic, you know that from where the officer came from that he'd have probably had to shoot his laser or radar through several cars, and that there were other possible interfering factors present that day. You'd want to call the officer to the stand to ask him about this, get him to explain that it's possible that he shot another car and not yours, and that maybe you were not speeding. If you do call the officer to the stand, but, remember not to decide to try to ruin his credibility by calling him a liar - that tactic only won't work.
More information is found on this page.
If you get a traffic ticket lawyer in NYC and face the decision of whether to subpoena law enforcement officer or not, take a minute to think about why you'd or would not want him or her there, and proceed from there. And if you need a little advice in advance, it usually helps to contact the pros - traffic lawyers - who can help point you in the right direction.
RSS Feed