Got a ticket, need help - Page 3

Not that I am offering anyone legal advice, but that response, under these facts, would be a very bad idea.

Perhaps I am being too subtle. Telling a judge under oath that you don't have certain information, when you in fact have that information, is a very bad idea. It can have consequences that are exponentially worse than a traffic fine.

I'm suggesting there is a way to get around the question if you really wanted to. Whether ultimately the judge thinks you are playing games and decides to slap you with the citation for doing so is another matter, but I don't think he should or would. If I were truly pressed by the judge I would say something along the lines of, "What I can tell you your honor was that the camera did not take a photo of me driving the car during the purported violation, as you can tell. I can't tell you from that grainy picture who was driving the car, all I know is that person is clearly not as handsome as I am. Is my understanding correct that it is law enforcment's job to identify a violator? I mean, if I didn't like my father-in-law, and I told you it looks like him (i.e., my wife may have let him borrow the car that day) would you automatically slap him with the ticket without any further process?"

What is the judge going to do - hold you in contempt if you don't want to make any solid conclusions in identifying a violator?

I think you have to be careful and I wouldn't say that the above. Judges don't like to be shown up in front of their courts especially when the gallery is filled with law enforcement personnel and other spectators. You may get away with it if you are the last case

Yes. The advice I already provided: chill.

Of course there is. I'm just saying that telling an outright lie to the judge, on a material issue that could be proved false by minor investigation, is a bad idea. You'd really be better off telling the judge "that's irrelevant to my case" than going down the road of giving evasive partial answers that will probably piss off the judge and lead to a cross-examination intended to embarass you at best and elicit perjury at worst.

This issue is the most painful part of photoenforcement tickets--that you can't show up and take the 5th if you want to contend that it isn't you, but there is no privilege you can invoke to avoid being questioned about who it really is.

Personally, if I got a ticket with someone else's photo, I'd opt for trial by written declaration (which we can do in CA) and send in a bunch of recent photos of myself with a declaration stating "This is me. I am not the person shown in the citation, and therefore am not guilty." No cross-examination, so no squirming around hoping not to be asked "then who is it?"


Maybe judges are a lot nicer where you live, but I can tell you that in LA, we have plenty of judges who would unhesitatingly do that to a person who tries to get cute.

One of the early lessons you get as a litigator is that judges exercise absolute power in their courtrooms, and the ill-tempered ones often have an uncanny ability to make sure that the record shows that what looked like petty vindictiveness to you, is actually a sound and reasonable exercise of their discretion that cannot be disturbed on appeal.