Traffic court: Is it worth the cost to contest a ticket?

If you do not have the upper hand in terms of proof, logic, and testimonial strength, then it is a good idea to think twice before contesting a ticket, as doing so can lead to even more costs, and wasted time. Those who do not pre-pay traffic tickets are usually required to attend traffic court if they are to testify for their plea of innocence. If you think you are not-guilty of a traffic violation, then be careful before making the decision to not pay a ticket. Below are some considerations to take in to account:

• If the judge does not find you innocent, court fees often apply

• If the ticket is not waived, both the ticket and fees will be due

• If ordinances say one thing, executive decisions may say another

• The judge who hears you influences the outcome of your testimony

• You must either prove your case, and/or officials must prove your guilt

If you are in clear violation of any road markings, street signs, or municipal ordinances, there is a reasonable chance paying the ticket will cost you less than contesting it. If you believe you are not in violation of ordinances, or road markings, but competing rules or signage exists, your innocence or guilt is up to the judge. Remember, there is supposed to be a transcript of the court proceedings, so citing the specific code you did not violate, and asking the officer a question that places the burden of proof on him or her should not be a problem for you.

Essentially, you want to ensure there is no room whatsoever for anyone including the judge to argue against you. It is wise not to forget that the county can make its own decisions, and that a judge will not necessarily rule against them. For example, suppose a municipal ordinance states no parking is allowable within 30 feet of a stop sign, but a (no) parking sign indicates otherwise. What should you do?

If you park next to the stop sign, then you are in violation of the ordinance, but if you do not, you may be ignoring the sign. Questions to ask:

• Why is the sign there?

• Was it placed there incorrectly?

• Who decided how it should be placed?

• Will a judge side with underlying law or county decisions?

Whenever there is ambiguity, prove it is ambiguous without cause. For instance, if the sign is placed in front of corporate offices, did those offices or non-judicial county officials influence the decision to place signs in a way that challenges the logic of the general law? Even though you may be right in terms of the ordinance, you may also be wrong in terms of the county's decision to place the sign the way they did.

The existence of anyreasonable doubt weakens your case. Doubt, is therefore a good thing to pay attention to, for the keys to proving your innocence are also contained in proving that doubt wrong. In the case of the above example of a sign with conflicting messages, you must obtain a written statement from an applicable county official that clarifies whether or not the sign is correctly positioned or not even if you did not break the law.

Think in terms of the four branches of government: judicial, legislative, executive and financial. The last branch is unofficial, but even the government has financial motives. It helps to have at least two of these on your side. For example, you must not be in violation of the law, and the judge must be convinced by your testimony, or you must not be in violation of either the law or executive decisions.

Image attributions:  

1. Public Domain 

2. Jarek Tuszynski; CC BY-SA 3.0  
3. US-PDGov 

Disclaimer: This article is not legal advice, nor is it guaranteed to be an accurate portrayal of any reality surrounding the nature of traffic law.