I have recently witnessed the greatest situational comedy I have seen in a long time. It is full of desperate pleas, characters, twists, bizarre tales, baffling plots and comical spin that will have the most experienced legal professional dropping their jaws: it is Traffic Court.
The (only) beauty of traffic court is that it embraces everyone. From the county’s most hardened criminals to the 80-year-old Grandmother and every soccer mom in between. Regardless of the person and even the infraction, they all come to court with one thing in common – they come prepared to fight. They arm themselves with full-sized blow-up diagrams, photos, paperwork, statutory codes… everything to attempt to prove their innocence. The crowd is diverse – bicyclists, foreigners with student visas struggling with English, the elderly, college kids, punks and professionals – all awaiting the same fate. Some are pacing, reciting their lines to make sure they nail the part. Others are visibly upset that they had to waste their time in traffic court, only to battle the inevitable insurance adjustment coming their way. Then there are those that brought their kids and spouses to try to help persuade the scales of justice to tilt their way.
Even better than the diverse people groups is the various styles of dress represented. Folks in bicycle clothing (either with suspended licenses or bicycle infractions), women wearing low-cut blouses and/or hiked up skirts, and men wearing suits or their best button-up shirt to help add some credibility to their statements.
Traffic court is a dark comedy that will make you cry if you have the opportunity to sit in, whether as an extra or participant.
Most people prepare solid cases, but even corporate lawyers who put together a bullet-proof case are in for a real surprise in traffic court. For those that love Law and Order, prepare to be upset. Yes, there are bailiffs, security guards, jury seating, microphones and a judge. There is one glaringly obvious thing missing, however: law. The law of the land has been amended for you on your special day in traffic court. You are best to forget everything you’ve even known about how our legal system works, and instead prepare yourself for more of a Kangaroo court than a trial. Traffic court is a court that even Judge Judy wouldn’t feel comfortable taking part in.
The burden of proof in today’s traffic court is the “preponderance of evidence.” Sounds official, but what is it? Nobody is exactly sure, but in the judges’ words at my personal traffic court episode (arraignment), “if you probably did it, you will be guilty.” This is the standard by which most traffic courts operate.
Preponderance of evidence— in Miller v. Minister of Pensions it was determined “more probable than not.” In other words, if the officer “proves” there is over a 50% chance that you did it… you are guilty. All they have to prove is that it probably happened. It quite literally could go down like this:
Judge: Officer, did he do it?
Officer: Um… probably?
Judge: Guilty then. Next!
This standard has been questioned for years… a quick Google search will show you all the headaches this has caused for lawyers and judges. For starters, why would an officer cite a motorist if it probably didn’t happen? Justice is holding a stacked deck against you from the start.
How does one “prove” it didn’t’ happen? You can’t, and that’s just the thing. That is why in our real legal system, the prosecution has to prove that something DID happen. The prosecution can’t prove something did happen though, because…
Enter my favorite traffic court morsel to chew on: the phantom prosecution. There is none. Even though the state/city claims to be the plaintiff and the court docket backs this up, nobody shows up to court. The only person that does show up, (unless you’re lucky) is the friendly officer that put you in this mess to begin with. Don’t worry though, the court has made sure that the officer is scheduled to work that and hopefully your employer is okay with your skipping out to have your day in traffic court.
So, the officer gets to wear several hats in this preponderance party: plaintiff AND prosecutor… AND the STAR WITNESS against you. How handy! It is, therefore, your word against the word of the plaintiff/traffic expert witness/prosecutor/co-worker of the judge that will be making the ruling!
Clearly, the cards are stacked. The fix is in and the only way not to get railroaded is to have a third party rule the case i.e. a jury decision. Right? Wrong. Only in real life law. You can thank your friendly courthouse for making that NOT an option, at least in the State of Oregon. So what do you do? Complain, say it ain’t so, and pay it. That is how it was designed, what is expected and what you will do.
In fairness, you do have a few other options. You can choose to end on a cliff-hanger and plead not guilty, taking your chances that the judge will not like what you have to say and will actually INCREASE your fine. The judge will probably even tell you he’s likely to increase your charges to deter you from actually wasting any of his time by arguing your case. Another option is simply cutting your losses, pleading no contest or guilty and hoping that the judge take pity on you. Maybe if you’re one of the lucky people who thought ahead, he will take pity on your kids or your spouse or maybe if you are doubly lucky, he or she enjoyed the clothing you opted to wear. Maybe.
Once all is said and done, all you can do is walk over to the Clerk, donning your big “I’m a loser” judgment sheet and ask what you are expected to pay. At this point, the only bit of fairness you can still hope to gleam from the system is to declare a payment plan. Yes, they’ll get your money, but it will be drawn out over as much time as legally possible. Then at least you are leaving as a loser… on a payment plan.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
