Racing cops follow up- court today

[dantama]

Some may remember the thread from back a ways when I raced a cop who was trying to prevent me from changing lanes into a freeway on ramp. I had a faster car and got on the ramp anyway, then of course got a ticket.

When I told about doing it on the day it happened, it apparently caused a ruckus and led to my exit as a staff member. Since it was such a ruckus, I thought I'd tell the final chapter.

I went to court today, went once to plead innocent (not so much innocent as "make the city prove it") Went again to ask for a postponement. Then today for the trial.

At trial I put on an excellent case, I had plenty of cross examination questions, and got most of what I wanted from the officer on cross examination. The judge did let her play the "I don't know" card very heavy.

"I don't know how fast I was going" "I don't know if I was going a reasonable speed", "as I said, I don't know". "I don't know if I was judging your speed relative to my own speed, or relative to fixed objects, that's not how I do it, I just look and see" <WTF? I'm thinking she failed physics.

So the judge let her get away with simply not knowing much. There was a lot more than just that of which she didn't know. I was successful in getting her to say that she blocked me twice when I was signaling to come into her lane, I give her kudos for that honesty.

I was basing my defense on the fact that I was "induced" to committed an offense that I would not otherwise have commited" at least not on that day anyway.

The judge found everyone guilty today, and I was the last one. He said that if she wouldn't let me into the lane, and she admitted to that, then I should have just kept going straight and turned around and gone back to the freeway. He didn't address the "inducing" part at all.

It was an enjoyable day, I like doing court. The officer was honest as far as not overtly lying, but sure claimed not to know much. I figured that she would deny her blocking efforts, but in the end under lots of cross examination, she admitted it. And admitted to twice doing it.

I was found guilty of a lessor charge, and the judge said he was sympathetic to the situation and that I put on a "pretty good" defense, but when people are trying to block you, you can't keep escalating it, just back off and go past the entrance and come back.

The cop came up after and shook my hand after and said "are you a lawyer?" I said no and she shook her head and said, "you sure do a good job." That pleased my egocentric nature.

I did a great defense, and I think I may win on appeal :)

So that was probably the second to last chapter on my old thread "I raced a cop today, I was faster, but she won." She still won :)

[caddman11]

Great story; I can't believe you got the cop to admit blocking you and still lost---so in the end, what did it cost you in points and $$$$$?

[cactusjack]

Dan Lund: "amateur litigator".

[lw]

Originally Posted by cactusjack

Dan Lund: "amateur litigator".

Cue Perry Mason Theme here. . .


Good story Dan

[blowndodge]

A sworn Police officer of the judicial system admitted purposely blocking you and the judge didn't toss it? What fiduciary duty did she show by aggressive driving (purposely blocking you)? I'd keep fighting it Dan. She can't be the "arresting" or "infraction" documenter in that situation. Fight it..

Admitting to aggressive driving causing you to take an action that she can bust you on? Are you freekin kidding me???

[dantama]

Originally Posted by caddman11

Great story; I can't believe you got the cop to admit blocking you and still lost---so in the end, what did it cost you in points and $$$$$?

$166.00

I went and observed the court earlier this week, I didn't know if they allow you the time needed to put on a good defense, as I had never done it in Colorado. There was two courts for traffic, one judge dismissed if there was a good defense, the other judge went with the cop on every one.

Even one where the lady put on a fabulous defense, and the cops only evidence (parking ticket) was that he was sure it had been two hours. She had an email to a co-worker from a different location and a witness from work to state that the email could only have been sent from the other location to prove she was gone in less than two hours from his stated first pass.

He found her guilty!

So I was hoping I had the other judge, but I had the everyone is guilty judge. I think if I appeal it, I have a good shot at winning with a different judge.

I was shocked that she admitted blocking. I had four pages of typed questions. Once she admitted it, I ditched the last two pages that were designed to trip her up and show she was lying. Didn't need them, she told the truth.

I need to study up on Radar. She said she had radar that can pick up a car from the rear, or from the front. She claimed that she got me on radar, but "had" to pace me and match my speed to make it work with the setting she was using that day. I crossed her and made her reiterate if she had me displayed on her radar, and she said yes. I asked if the only way to measure my speed with the radar was to match my speed with her vehicle and she said yes, with the setting she was using she had to.

I can't imagine that what she is saying there is true. What good is radar if you have to drive next to the person and match their speed?

Because I didn't have the knowledge to claim any different, all I could do is question her and make her say it in stronger terms.

The judge bought that she "had" to match my speed with that radar, and so when I'd move in front of her and signal to come over, she had to speed up and match my speed. She admitted to doing that two times before I accelerated hard and pulled in front of her.

I'll have to do some research and see if she could really get me on radar, and "have" to speed up and match my speed also.

[markusmaximus]

Fascinating story Dan. I missed it the first time around. I agree with BD --- appeal this on grounds that the cop is equally culpable. Try to get it thrown out on a technicality, akin to entrapment. Perhaps persistence will prove your case merits.

Clarification; did you plead "innocent" or "not guilty". There's a difference.

What I don't understand is how this incident lead to your "exit" as a staff member? Over a speeding ticket???

[cactusjack]

Yep, only safe, law-abiding people are qualified to be on staff here. I'm kidding...I'm sure Dan will explain if he wants it to be public knowledge.

[markusmaximus]

Originally Posted by cactusjack

Yep, only safe, law-abiding people are qualified to be on staff here. I'm kidding...I'm sure Dan will explain if he wants it to be public knowledge.

LOL. I guess I'll never be a staff member. Way too many speeding tickets in my past.

[dantama]

Oh no, it's a racket here in Colorado.

I went down to find out the appeals process and found that they charge you $200 to transcribe the hearing so that you can give the appeals court the transcription.

Fine $166, transcription $200. So even if I won the appeal, I'd be $35 in the whole. If I lost, I'd be $200 in the hole on top of the $166.

They figured out how to keep people from appealing traffic tickets here. :(

If only I could have foreseen that she would claim that she "had" to speed up and block me to get my speed on her radar set up, I could have educated myself on it and disputed it. I think the judge should have given it to me anyway, but I could have helped my situation if I was prepared for that and could have shed doubt on it.

Of course I could have avoided the whole thing in the first place if I hadn't wanted to win on the power struggle and had tucked in behind her.

[ringadingh]

Even though you had her admit blocking you still had to pay? Its all a game, they win no matter what.

Hey Dan!!
Here in NJ the radar guns have to be calibrated and certified periodicly. If they are not up to date on certification it gets thrown out. My wife has used it and just recently she advised one of her students to use it and the student won. It costs money to calibrate them and cuts in on the profits.
Just one more angle to try.
Good Luck!!
Tom (future Nomad owner)

[johnb]

I wish you luck on appeal.

I don't see why this wasn't dismissed. As long as it would have been legal for you to move over into that lane (ie: no solid line) the cop should have demonstrated as a "good example" and allowed you into the lane. The cop should be held to a higher standard as the "professional" they are supposed to represent. You are right that they "induced" you.

Turn the situation around and if you had done what the cop did, you probably would have been ticketed and lost just the same.

I trust that you weren't one of those "cutter inners" like I have to deal with serveral times when I commute to work each way. BTW, on the FDR Drive, Brooklyn Bridge, BQE, Bruckner Xway they generally cut in where it is NOT legal to do so (ie: solid line; stripes).

[dantama]

Originally Posted by johnb

I wish you luck on appeal.


I trust that you weren't one of those "cutter inners" like I have to deal with serveral times when I commute to work each way.

Here's what the situation looked like. We were all stopped at a light at the bottom of the picture, then I made on try, a second try, and moved in on a white line on my third try.

I love to go through the curves of the entrance fast. I like to be the first car in becasue everyone else always goes right up to it and then hits the brakes. I never hit the brakes, I hit it at speed just cause I like to, then I hit the merge already at freeway speed.

No car has ever been held up because I was in front of them :) And except for the cop I move in well ahead of the solid line.

Originally Posted by johnb

I wish you luck on appeal.

I don't see why this wasn't dismissed. As long as it would have been legal for you to move over into that lane (ie: no solid line) the cop should have demonstrated as a "good example" and allowed you into the lane. The cop should be held to a higher standard as the "professional" they are supposed to represent. You are right that they "induced" you.

Turn the situation around and if you had done what the cop did, you probably would have been ticketed and lost just the same.

I trust that you weren't one of those "cutter inners" like I have to deal with serveral times when I commute to work each way. BTW, on the FDR Drive, Brooklyn Bridge, BQE, Bruckner Xway they generally cut in where it is NOT legal to do so (ie: solid line; stripes).

xgringo, she did testify that she had calibrated it.

Johnb, here's what happened, and its what she testified and admitted to.

We were both first in line at the light at the bottom of the hill, her in lane 4 (the one that eventually becomes the freeway entrance only lane) I was in lane 2. That part is undisputed.

She claims that next I came to her attention when I "came flying up behind her". Not true

I left the line slightly faster than her and lane 3 car. I signaled and casually moved into lane 3. As we were all first in line at the light, there was no traffic in front of me, and it was a one lane move with a handful of car lengths between me and the car behind.

I then signaled to move in front of the cop. In Denver, it is very common that if you signal a move, the person speeds up and blocks you. I've only lived here a couple of years, but its a very apparent thing here. If you signal, you have to dive in at the same time. I usually signal ahead of the move, and if they speed up to block they'll just have to hit the brakes when I come in anyway. Because it was a cop, I expected that I would be able to do a normal signal. She sped up and blocked it.

So I didn't come flying up behind her as she testified, We both left the light slightly ahead of the other traffic. She testified that I tried to move over at about the last light before the freeway (about 10 seconds at speed before the entrance, broken line still. So the only part in dispute is if I was "flying up" behind her. There was no way that I was flying up behind her unless she was really "flying" when she left the light and I had to catch up. She refused to say if she left the light in a normal manner, or if she was going a reasonable speed.

I moved ahead increasing my speed and tried again to come over (she had only come up along side me and matched my speed, she didn't keep going past me. She blocked again. This time we were right near the entrance and having a powerful car and annoyed at this cops show of power being wielded for no reason, and having a problem with authority in general, I floored, out accelerated her block, and got in front. She hit the lights and pulled me over. Because in 10 seconds we had done this three times to get on the freeway, I was going 56mph in a 35.

That is what happened. The only disputed thing was if I came "flying up behind her". I didn't, we left the light only slightly faster than all the other traffic, I was in front of her and signaled to come over, she blocked twice and with my authority issues :) I made the move anyway.

[dantama]

Another thing. The judge totally bought that it happened like I said. There was just no evidence disputing that the cop "had" to do it that way to get me on radar.

The judge said that when these type of road rage things happen, you just have to let the offending car go on it's way. He told me about driving with his wife and what they do when this happens. He asked/told were does it end? "In your case at 56mph." "You should have just forgot about getting on the freeway and continued to the next intersection and turned around and come back to the freeway."

So my whole theory and defense of being "induced" into committing an offense that I other wise would not have committed was not looked at, at all. She admits to doing it but says she had to (she wasn't even a traffic enforcement cop, she's stationed at the airport and was headed there) and the judge said that because I had other options, I should have taken one of them instead. He's completely right that I "could have" taken another option, but you shouldn't be on the losing end of being induced to commit an offense.

Cops can hide out in the bushes with a radar gun, but they shouldn't soup up a car looking like the fast and the furious and rev their engines at red lights signaling that they want to race. There is a line where they are no longer giving opportunity to break the law, and they are now inducing people to break a law that they wouldn't have broken.

I would have gotten ahead of her at 40mph in a 35 and gotten on the freeway, not 56mph.

I had other options, I have a problem with authority, I like cops a lot better when they aren't on duty (hey, a lot of people don't like psychotherapist either, and I'm ok with that) but speeding up to block a person from getting on the freeway and then losing the case is a bummer. Wish I was in the next court over.

Next time even with my problem with authority, I might save $166 and just get blocked out.

Or I might hit the gas and get on the freeway? I kind of hope not though, it's a waste of money.

Then again I might not want cops to think speeding up to block a lane change 5mph over the limit is an effective "deterrent".