Lawyers who know something about traffic court, help me out

[bluebell]

My son got a ticket 18 months ago for not wearing his seatbelt.  He was wearing it (he won't even go around the block without it on) but I have experience with cops being jerks to teenage boys, just because they can be I guess, and I think he pulled him over to see what he was up to and tacked on the "you weren't wearing a seatbelt" excuse after the fact to make it look legit.

The court appearance had been put off and put off again for 18 months until today, when he was finally able to see a judge over what is essentially zoom for the court system.  After 20 minutes of going over everything that happened, hearing from the police office and watching the body camera footage, the judge said that it was my son's word against the cops and that, though he never does this, he was recessing everything until next week, same time.

Uh, what?

If there is no more evidence to present, why would you make everyone came back a week later?  Does anyone have experience with this who can say why the judge would call for them to reconvene (for lack of a better term) on a contested ticket when there is no more evidence to give?  The judge also said the cop didn't need to show up next time.  Why not?  Why bring everyone back but the cop?

I'm so confused and that makes me annoyed.  If my son ends up having to pay the ticket so be it.  He has the money and it won't be that big of a deal.  I'm more concern with making sure everything is fair, and this seems like the judge trying to give the prosecutor more time to make a case or something, which doesn't seem all that fair to me.

Anyone here in the know?

[The Nehor]

Gonna guess it is like 95% of the court problems I have seen and someone screwed up some paperwork.

[Calm]

Maybe he wants to check the cop’s record of citations?  If there were complaints he gave out tickets unjustly?

But my guess is paperwork or some technical thing like Nehor said. 
 

But have no expertise in this. Pure guesswork. 
 

Seems inefficient and a big waste of money though. The salaries of everyone involved, doubt the ticket covers the time invested. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Calm

[Duncan]

My guess is the judge wants to go over the evidence run more time to see if anything new pops up one way or the other.  I am amazed though it was held over, usually those types of cases are done and dusted on the day they are presented

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Duncan said:

My guess is the judge wants to go over the evidence run more time to see if anything new pops up one way or the other.  I am amazed though it was held over, usually those types of cases are done and dusted on the day they are presented

Exactly.  It was just so weird to recess for a week.  

[rpn]

If it is even, then the judge should have immediately found him not guilty --- the officer had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.    (And if I'd been  your son, I'd have taken buddies who watched me always buckle up to testify for me.)     The problem you son has is that if the judge finds him not guilty, the officer is in trouble perhaps and that puts the judge out of sync with the cops (which isn't supposed to be a problem, but in some justice courts particularly the relationships are such that it may.)  

(I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it was postponed because the officer didn't ever appear --- if that is accurate, the charges should have been dismissed the first time the officer didn't show up.

And if he is found guilty in a justice court in UT he can then appeal to the next court level  (or could have the last time i was running traffic court, so he'll want to check).   Then his parents who can testify that since age _____ he buckled up willing and without prompting every time, any other adult he rides with, and any kiddos he rides with who can truthfully so testify, can also testify.    Was there body cam footage around?  (Of course it probably wasn't preserved if it was.   If your son took off the seatbelt to get the documents from the glove compartment, that might explain the difference in stories, specially if it was dark.    And your son should also point out that it is a seat belt violation, that has little consequence so the only rational explanation for fighting it supports his testimony that he really was wearing it.

[Mike Drop]

On 11/9/2021 at 6:30 PM, bluebell said:

My son got a ticket 18 months ago for not wearing his seatbelt.  He was wearing it (he won't even go around the block without it on) but I have experience with cops being jerks to teenage boys, just because they can be I guess, and I think he pulled him over to see what he was up to and tacked on the "you weren't wearing a seatbelt" excuse after the fact to make it look legit.

The court appearance had been put off and put off again for 18 months until today, when he was finally able to see a judge over what is essentially zoom for the court system.  After 20 minutes of going over everything that happened, hearing from the police office and watching the body camera footage, the judge said that it was my son's word against the cops and that, though he never does this, he was recessing everything until next week, same time.

Uh, what?

If there is no more evidence to present, why would you make everyone came back a week later?  Does anyone have experience with this who can say why the judge would call for them to reconvene (for lack of a better term) on a contested ticket when there is no more evidence to give?  The judge also said the cop didn't need to show up next time.  Why not?  Why bring everyone back but the cop?

I'm so confused and that makes me annoyed.  If my son ends up having to pay the ticket so be it.  He has the money and it won't be that big of a deal.  I'm more concern with making sure everything is fair, and this seems like the judge trying to give the prosecutor more time to make a case or something, which doesn't seem all that fair to me.

Anyone here in the know?

Sounds to me like your son is going to get out of the ticket. If it’s your son’s word against the cops word, the judge just took the cop out of the court room for next week, most cops only go to court one day a month anyway. Judge probably knows the cop and didn’t want to rule against him in the court room. More than likely the judge will ask if there’s anymore evidence from the prosecutor and if not your son’s case will be dismissed.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, rpn said:

If it is even, then the judge should have immediately found him not guilty --- the officer had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.    (And if I'd been  your son, I'd have taken buddies who watched me always buckle up to testify for me.)     The problem you son has is that if the judge finds him not guilty, the officer is in trouble perhaps and that puts the judge out of sync with the cops (which isn't supposed to be a problem, but in some justice courts particularly the relationships are such that it may.)  

(I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it was postponed because the officer didn't ever appear --- if that is accurate, the charges should have been dismissed the first time the officer didn't show up.

And if he is found guilty in a justice court in UT he can then appeal to the next court level  (or could have the last time i was running traffic court, so he'll want to check).   Then his parents who can testify that since age _____ he buckled up willing and without prompting every time, any other adult he rides with, and any kiddos he rides with who can truthfully so testify, can also testify.    Was there body cam footage around?  (Of course it probably wasn't preserved if it was.   If your son took off the seatbelt to get the documents from the glove compartment, that might explain the difference in stories, specially if it was dark.    And your son should also point out that it is a seat belt violation, that has little consequence so the only rational explanation for fighting it supports his testimony that he really was wearing it.

It was around 3 or 4 in the afternoon so darkness wasn't an issue.  He had been driving on the interstate and but missed his exit so got off so he could turn around and get back on.  He was pulled over in that time that he was driving to the next exit by a Pleasant Grove police officer.  (We talked to him on the phone because the car was ours and the insurance was in our business name and he was kind of a jerk).

The cop was in court and did testify. They showed the body cam footage and his dash cam footage, which didn't show anything one way or the other.  The cop and prosecutor tried to make the case that even if he took his seatbelt off once he pulled over, it was still illegal because the car engine was still on (so legally "driving" even if in park).  They couldn't prove the car engine was still on, as my son didn't remember if it was or not and was honest about that, but either way the judge said he didn't really care if he had his seatbelt on once he was pulled over and stopped, he only cared whether or not he was driving with it on.

I do like the witness idea and my son might choose to go that route.  It's so insane that he has to miss work again a week later for this issue when it seems like it should have been figured out the first time he had to miss work.

[bluebell]

He had his second day "in" court today and was acquitted.  Judge said he looked over the evidence and there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.  In case anyone was wondering how it all went.   

[rongo]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

He had his second day "in" court today and was acquitted.  Judge said he looked over the evidence and there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.  In case anyone was wondering how it all went.   

They could have done that on the first date, when the prosecution didn't have their act together. All's well that end's well, but kind of a hassle and stressful for your family. 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

They could have done that on the first date, when the prosecution didn't have their act together. All's well that end's well, but kind of a hassle and stressful for your family. 

I agree.  Maybe the judge wanted the cop to save face or something.

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

He had his second day "in" court today and was acquitted.  Judge said he looked over the evidence and there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.  In case anyone was wondering how it all went.   

I was. Thank you.

[mrmarklin]

On 11/9/2021 at 3:30 PM, bluebell said:

My son got a ticket 18 months ago for not wearing his seatbelt.  He was wearing it (he won't even go around the block without it on) but I have experience with cops being jerks to teenage boys, just because they can be I guess, and I think he pulled him over to see what he was up to and tacked on the "you weren't wearing a seatbelt" excuse after the fact to make it look legit.

The court appearance had been put off and put off again for 18 months until today, when he was finally able to see a judge over what is essentially zoom for the court system.  After 20 minutes of going over everything that happened, hearing from the police office and watching the body camera footage, the judge said that it was my son's word against the cops and that, though he never does this, he was recessing everything until next week, same time.

Uh, what?

If there is no more evidence to present, why would you make everyone came back a week later?  Does anyone have experience with this who can say why the judge would call for them to reconvene (for lack of a better term) on a contested ticket when there is no more evidence to give?  The judge also said the cop didn't need to show up next time.  Why not?  Why bring everyone back but the cop?

I'm so confused and that makes me annoyed.  If my son ends up having to pay the ticket so be it.  He has the money and it won't be that big of a deal.  I'm more concern with making sure everything is fair, and this seems like the judge trying to give the prosecutor more time to make a case or something, which doesn't seem all that fair to me.

Anyone here in the know?

Here in CA the cop would not have shown up.  It's considered a waste of time for them.  Hence the ticket would be dismissed.  Your son needs additional testimony, maybe yours, about his habit of always wearing a seatbelt.  I protest every ticket I get.  And it's a lot because I own a showy sport coupe and the CHP likes to ticket those.  Like the character in Guys and Dolls, I have a lot of arrests but no convictions.

Why doesn't the body cam footage show the belt on?  Maybe because he undid it as the cop approached the vehicle.  I do this.

[mrmarklin]

On 11/16/2021 at 3:51 PM, bluebell said:

He had his second day "in" court today and was acquitted.  Judge said he looked over the evidence and there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.  In case anyone was wondering how it all went.   

I gave my reply before I read the entire thread.  Good for him.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Here in CA the cop would not have shown up.  It's considered a waste of time for them.  Hence the ticket would be dismissed.  Your son needs additional testimony, maybe yours, about his habit of always wearing a seatbelt.  I protest every ticket I get.  And it's a lot because I own a showy sport coupe and the CHP likes to ticket those.  Like the character in Guys and Dolls, I have a lot of arrests but no convictions.

Why doesn't the body cam footage show the belt on?  Maybe because he undid it as the cop approached the vehicle.  I do this.

Yes, he took the seatbelt off so he could get his wallet out of his back pocket to get his license. 

[Mark Beesley]

I was going to say the same thing Mike Drop said, based on my experiences as a young prosecutor in traffic court. Little infraction traffic cases that the judge puts over after hearing evidence usually get dismissed, out of deference to the cop. The judge doesn't want to call the cop a liar in open court.

[Mark Beesley]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Here in CA the cop would not have shown up.  It's considered a waste of time for them.  Hence the ticket would be dismissed.  Your son needs additional testimony, maybe yours, about his habit of always wearing a seatbelt.  I protest every ticket I get.  And it's a lot because I own a showy sport coupe and the CHP likes to ticket those.  Like the character in Guys and Dolls, I have a lot of arrests but no convictions.

Why doesn't the body cam footage show the belt on?  Maybe because he undid it as the cop approached the vehicle.  I do this.

Don't count on the cop not showing up.  They get time and half to go to court.  They usually show up.

[mrmarklin]

On 11/18/2021 at 4:43 PM, Mark Beesley said:

Don't count on the cop not showing up.  They get time and half to go to court.  They usually show up.

Not my experience at all. I probably have averaged two tickets per year the last ten years. Mostly speeding. But…….I even beat a camera ticket a few years back.  😀

Edited November 26, 2021 by mrmarklin

[Amulek]

On 11/18/2021 at 4:56 PM, bluebell said:

Yes, he took the seatbelt off so he could get his wallet out of his back pocket to get his license. 

Best to hold off on that until the officer actually asks for it.

If they see a bunch of movement in the car they may suspect you are trying to hide something.

Just pull over, roll down the window, turn off your vehicle, and then leave your hands on the wheel and wait for the officer to approach. If it's dark outside, it's also a good idea to turn on your cabin lights, as that increases visibility for the officer and helps him feel safer.

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Best to hold off on that until the officer actually asks for it.

If they see a bunch of movement in the car they may suspect you are trying to hide something.

Just pull over, roll down the window, turn off your vehicle, and then leave your hands on the wheel and wait for the officer to approach. If it's dark outside, it's also a good idea to turn on your cabin lights, as that increases visibility for the officer and helps him feel safer.

 

I agree.  He was 17 at the time and had never been pulled over before so he was pretty nervous.  Rookie mistake.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  He was 17 at the time and had never been pulled over before so he was pretty nervous.  Rookie mistake.

Yeah, it can be a little nerve wracking knowing what to do the first time you get pulled over - especially if you are a minor.

My daughter is in driver's ed right now, and I really wish this sort of information was included in the curriculum.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yeah, it can be a little nerve wracking knowing what to do the first time you get pulled over - especially if you are a minor.

My daughter is in driver's ed right now, and I really wish this sort of information was included in the curriculum.

Teens should also be aware (especially teen boys) that a lot of police will be more aggressive towards them just because they are teenagers.  They will probably get pulled over more often for small offenses (like happened with my son) or just because the cop thinks they look suspicious.  Especially if they are driving certain makes and models of vehicles.  They are more likely to assume the teen is up to no good than they are with adults.

A lot of cops are more jaded with teens (again, especially boys) and have a bit of a 'get them before they get us'  or 'no teen can be trusted' mentality.  It doesn't help teens trust police or feel safe around them and wish they would do better at that relationship.

Not all of course.  Some are great.  But I do think teens need to be prepared for interactions with people in authority where they are likely to be accused of criminal activity for no other reason than their age.  I think it helps the kids react more calmly if they know it could happen and are prepared for it.