I was at the line of a stop light on a busy expresway. When it turned green I flored it and took off fast. It was dark and I did not see any car lights right behind or around me. I sure passed the 45 mph speed limit. At that time there was a bike-cop following me with his LIGHTS OFF. I don't know if that is legal for them. He didn't have a radar but said that he "followed me for a while" which was <1sec, at 70 mph. Now I got the ticket. I'll fight it because, I didnt pass 60 mph and I don't think that he can proove my speed. I just want to know if it's OK for them to drive with the lights off like that?

'00 1.8TQMS

in a 60. The problem was I had the cruise control set at 71 and had just had an arguement with my finace and her best friend about it.
Told this to the judge (with my fiance's friend present) and he threw it out.
Score for those at home keeping track of my pull-over to ticket ratio:

David(no ticket) Cops(ticket) Total Pull-overs
12 9 21

I'm 22 and batting .571!

Cheers and Happy speeding!

I'm a prosecutor - prosecuted lots of traffic tickets when I was new. (Of course, that was people speeding in their brand new Model T's...)

You want to fight the ticket on the basis that "Cop says I was doing 70. I was only doing 60!"

So what - the speed limit was 45, and you just confessed to violating it. Judge might cut you a little slack on the fine, or he might not. The issue is NOT how fast you were going - the issue is whether you were going over the limit (in most places) or at an unsafe speed (in California, unless speed limit was 65 or over). The judge might agree that he's not sure the cop pegged you at 70, but he won't have any trouble at all believing the cop when he says you blew right through 45!

Sorry to rain on your parade. If traffic school's an option, take it. You're not going to beat this one.

DMoore
'00 S4

Thank you for your reply!
I never told the P.O. how fast I was going. I just told him that I was not going 70mph and that I will not sign the ticket for violence I did not commit. He said that he didn't care and that I should go to court for it. I told him that I would.
That is it

That the police officer doesn't really need to convince the judge that he got you at 70. All he needs to do is convince the judge that you were doing over 45. Since you concede you were doing 60, even if you didn't say so to the officer, I bet the judge will believe that you were in fact speeding.

Trust me - (Oh God! Can you believe a lawyer was stupid enough to say that?) traffic school is better than fighting and losing!

DMoore
'00 S4
(with no financial interest in any traffic school)

Best is to not say much when getting a ticket. Ask questions, but don't offer ANY information. Don't contest anything the officer says at the scene, but don't agree either. Save it for the courtroom. Every officer will write down a transcript of the converstation after giving a ticket. They will use it in court. If they think you are going to take it to court, they will be there. Take note of all the conditions and write up your own little notes on the details. If you can find something that the officer didn't notice or know, you might ( I emphasize might ) get the judge on your side. Best to find out what typically happens in traffic court in your state/area, some places you can reduce your fine or keep points off your record just by showing up in court.

JDietz
'97 A4 1.8TQMS ( with plenty of tickets and court appearences in my past )

im not a lawyer, but if you refuse to sign a ticket can't you get into more legal trouble? signing a ticket isnt an admission to guilt

no a4 yet

Signing a ticket has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's just a promise to appear in court. If you refuse to sign the ticket, you may be leaving the officer no choice but to arrest you and take you to jail. A few so-called "Constitutionalists" will do that, but most folks sign the ticket once they have the alternative explained to them.

DMoore
'00 S4

then you should be ashamed.

traffic officer and everything DMoore and JDietz says is correct.

A friend of mine was riding his motorcycle through the San Luis Obispo area up the California coast. Got pulled over by an officer (a local sheriff) who said he paced my friend to have gone over the speed limit. My friend says that he noticed the officer while in town and slow traffic, but once on the freeway, he pulled ahead while the officer was stuck behind traffic (it was a 4-lane freeway, 2 in each direction). He built up a good lead, and couldn't see the officer behind him for miles. 20 miles later back in town, the officer caught up and pulled him over! Claimed that he paced him and said he sped, wrote him up. My friend admitted (to me, not to the officer) that he was about 10-15mph over the limit at one point when he couldn't see the officer (and yes, he was watching behind him), but never while the officer was within view. At best, the officer could see him as a speck in the distance at a bend up the winding CA coast highway (it wouldn't have been too hard, since my friend's bike is *bright red*).

Anyway, the question is, how much time/distance can an officer pace a driver and be accurate enough for the court? My friend believes that the officer could NOT have paced him from that far back. Just because the officer couldn't catch up for so long did not (necessarily) mean my friend was speeding, just that the officer was stuck behind traffic!

BTW, that was one persistent officer!

If his lights were off that's completely unrelated and irrelevant to your speeding and not a good defense. Just because he did something illegal doesn't mean you can get away with something illegal! (No, honest your honor! I saw the cop shoot an innocent man, so I figured it would be okay if I shot my wife and collected the insurance. You have to pronounce me innocent!)

Although if he measured your speed by pacing you with his car speedometer and his dash lights weren't on because the headlights weren't on - then you might be able to argue he couldn't effectively see his speedometer. (Wouldn't work if he was driving an A4 since the dashlights are on even if the headlights aren't! Find out what kind of car he was driving and research the dash lights.)

The method he used to obtain your speed should be on your ticket, I think. www.motorists.org can give you info on how to research and develop a defense for a traffic ticket. It will take some time and effort, so you must decide what you want to do.

Jim Meyer
'98.5 2.8QMS

When you are pulled over, you are basically under arrest. And by signing the ticket you are you are signing for your own release without admitting guilt. Kind of like the bail system, except in this case you don't pay any bail fees.

There's no real answer to your question. If it's close enough to convince the judge, then that's good enough. Really, consider this. If officer is doing speed limit and you're going away, you're speeding. If he speeds up enough to maintain a rough pace on you, and he's significantly over the limit, then so are you. The numbers aren't that important. The issue is whether or not you were speeding - not HOW MUCH you were speeding. Judges are famous for saying "Oh, that's OK. I won't fine you for the 75 the officer said you were going. I'll just fine you for the 65 (or whatever) that was the minimum you were doing!"

DMoore
'00 S4

he has no proof, which he still needs. Tell the judge you were driving 45mph. If he didn't clock you, he is supposed to ask you how fast your going.

Truly, this all depends on the judge. I prosecuted hundreds of speeding tickets when I was a young prosecutor. With some judges, a mere eyeball estimate of speed from the officer was enough for the judge. "Gee your honor, traffic was moving around 45, and I could tell he was quite a bit faster." That's enough for many judges.

DMoore
'00 S4

...and the judge sure thought the police officer's word was enough. Here in Wisconsin there are a few boxes on the ticket that the officer can check, depending on the method of speed enforcement used. One of them is pacing. They do it all the time, even with airplanes, using painted lines on the road to calculate your speed. No radar/laser necessary.

The officer didn't even show up for the court arraignment during my last ticket, and it was thrown out. I almost paid it off the previous day.
Bog the court system down.

parking lights on when he checks you for speed on the side of the road, maybe you can use the same reasoning for him pacing you, after all its not that safe to drive at night at "70" with no lights on!!! Good luck fighting the B@St!r1s

"Entrapment" has a specific legal definition, and this isn't close. It pertains to a situation where the police lure a person, who was not otherwise predisposed to do so, into committing a crime.

The classic example would be to use an especially attractive woman to keep asking a guy, over and over, to "score her some dope" with the implied hint that it might help him score, too. If the guy is a dealer anyway, no entrapment. But if it's something way out of the ordinary for him, then that's entrapment.

A vehicular comparison might be if a cop in an unmarked unit, namely a modified GTI VR6 (to borrow from another thread) pulled up alongside your A4 1.8T, insulted your parents, and challenged you to a drag. If he suddenly pulls you over (regardless of who won the race) and tickets you, I'd feel pretty good about your chances of beating that one.

But driving without lights? Nothing to do with entrapment. It's a really dumb thing for the officer to do though, and I'd sure bitch at his department. He's creating an enormous liability issue for them, because if he hits another car, and his lights aren't on, boy will they get sued! I'd be pretty sure his department will frown hard on such tactics. But that doesn't help much with your ticket.