An organization I'm quite fond of, Flex Your Rights, has put their video on youtube. The video is named Busted, and I highly recommend it.
Basically, the video offers suggestions about what to do when you're confronted by police, including traffic stops, when you're stopped on the street, or when they come to your front door.
I don't agree with everything in the video. In particular, I don't like the suggestion of rolling down your window just a crack. That's a good way of making a cop not like you, and most courts will consider that to be suspicious behavior. I also think you should try to be polite and even show a sense of humor with police, but the humor can be difficult unless you're an arrogant jerk like me, and you have the knowledge to back it up. :-)
Anyway, check the video out (it's somewhat long, maybe 45 minutes).
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
A great comment on one of my previous posts
In April I did a post titled Criminal Injustice. I just got an anonymous comment on it and I'd bet my regular readers will be interested in it. I really want to encourage people to comment on my posts. It makes the blog more interesting.
An acquaintance actually said something to my wife about not agreeing with one of my posts on my restaurant review blog. I had criticized a local restaurant and she didn't agree with me. So post a review!! Isn't that the wonderful thing about blogs? This is supposed to be a revolution in participatory media, but you have to participate to really make it work.
An acquaintance actually said something to my wife about not agreeing with one of my posts on my restaurant review blog. I had criticized a local restaurant and she didn't agree with me. So post a review!! Isn't that the wonderful thing about blogs? This is supposed to be a revolution in participatory media, but you have to participate to really make it work.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Traffic lawyers are really just tax lawyers
Some of my traffic ticket callers seem upset at the injustice involved. They have a variety of complaints: weren't really speeding, others were going faster, police drive fast or use cell phones when they're driving, etc.
My personal opinion about this is simple. This system has nothing to do with justice or traffic safety. It's just another tax - a particularly unfair one, but still a tax.
If traffic enforcement were really about safety, then it would be much more focused on the most dangerous areas -- where there are lots of pedestrians, intersections, roads with disproportionate number of accidents, etc.
If it were really about safety, then cops wouldn't speed or talk on their cell phones while driving. I'm on the road a lot, and I see cops speeding all the time, and they're always talking on cell phones.
One caveat here -- I think most cops really believe in the child seat laws. When I'm negotiating with them, speeding tickets are always routine - even the high speeds. But a lot of Troopers get upset and are harder to deal with when the client had a kid out of a car seat. As an aside here, if those seats are so good (and I believe they are), then how come my seat doesn't have the extra straps?
Anyway, traffic enforcement is really about one thing and one thing only. Revenue. I've seen newspaper articles where towns brag about how much revenue their court generates. Funny. I didn't know that was the purpose of the courts or the police. The one I'm thinking of (Colonie a few years ago) had something like $500K in revenue. Okay, so your police budget is something like $4 million (not including Troopers and deputy sheriffs, who aren't on the town budget), and you spend probably another couple million on court staff and facilities, and your revenue is $500K? Not bragging material.
I keep running away from my point. Look, this is not about justice or safety. It's about revenue. The enforcement of traffic violations is simply a tax. This tax is unfair in many ways.
It's not a progressive tax -- traffic fines are the same whether you're rich or poor. Wealthier drivers are more likely to hire a lawyer and keep their fines/taxes down, so in reality it's a little regressive. Traffic fines in New York are among the highest around, so it's particularly harsh. Imagine someone making $20K/year getting whacked on a 31 mph ticket in a construction zone. Maximum fines and assessments total about $1700, and that's before your insurance rates spike.
It's an arbitrary tax -- while nearly all of us speed at some point in a given year (studies show that 85% of drivers drive over the speed limit consistently), few of us actually get ticketed. It's the luck of the draw. I've slowed down quite a bit from my younger days, but I still have my moments, and I haven't been ticketed in several years (knock on wood).
So I'm really just a tax lawyer. I work on reducing your traffic taxes.
My personal opinion about this is simple. This system has nothing to do with justice or traffic safety. It's just another tax - a particularly unfair one, but still a tax.
If traffic enforcement were really about safety, then it would be much more focused on the most dangerous areas -- where there are lots of pedestrians, intersections, roads with disproportionate number of accidents, etc.
If it were really about safety, then cops wouldn't speed or talk on their cell phones while driving. I'm on the road a lot, and I see cops speeding all the time, and they're always talking on cell phones.
One caveat here -- I think most cops really believe in the child seat laws. When I'm negotiating with them, speeding tickets are always routine - even the high speeds. But a lot of Troopers get upset and are harder to deal with when the client had a kid out of a car seat. As an aside here, if those seats are so good (and I believe they are), then how come my seat doesn't have the extra straps?
Anyway, traffic enforcement is really about one thing and one thing only. Revenue. I've seen newspaper articles where towns brag about how much revenue their court generates. Funny. I didn't know that was the purpose of the courts or the police. The one I'm thinking of (Colonie a few years ago) had something like $500K in revenue. Okay, so your police budget is something like $4 million (not including Troopers and deputy sheriffs, who aren't on the town budget), and you spend probably another couple million on court staff and facilities, and your revenue is $500K? Not bragging material.
I keep running away from my point. Look, this is not about justice or safety. It's about revenue. The enforcement of traffic violations is simply a tax. This tax is unfair in many ways.
It's not a progressive tax -- traffic fines are the same whether you're rich or poor. Wealthier drivers are more likely to hire a lawyer and keep their fines/taxes down, so in reality it's a little regressive. Traffic fines in New York are among the highest around, so it's particularly harsh. Imagine someone making $20K/year getting whacked on a 31 mph ticket in a construction zone. Maximum fines and assessments total about $1700, and that's before your insurance rates spike.
It's an arbitrary tax -- while nearly all of us speed at some point in a given year (studies show that 85% of drivers drive over the speed limit consistently), few of us actually get ticketed. It's the luck of the draw. I've slowed down quite a bit from my younger days, but I still have my moments, and I haven't been ticketed in several years (knock on wood).
So I'm really just a tax lawyer. I work on reducing your traffic taxes.
Speeding Ticket Excuses: 12 weak ones and a couple that might work
I get a lot of calls about speeding tickets, and some callers have excuses. Most clients accept responsibility -- they know they were speeding and they just got caught.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. I like to reassure my clients that this is not about justice. It's an unfair tax, and I'm really just a tax lawyer, working to reduce their taxes (in the form of fines, surcharges, assessments, and insurance rates - that's the subject of another blog post someday).
But some of my clients have to tell me their story. It's almost never a good story. Below I list a few of my favorite speeding ticket excuses that I can remember. They're not in any particular order.
-Update: See my new post on Adrian Peterson's speeding ticket-
1. I was going downhill. -- Strangely, the highway people don't increase the speed limit on downhill sections of road.
2. I have oversized tires. -- These guys usually say they were going downhill.
3. I was passing a truck. -- I must have missed that exception in the Vehicle & Traffic Law.
4. I was late and my wife was waiting for me. -- I could see some cops buying this one, but not at 107 mph. One guy who told me this was a heart surgeon.
5. It was a rental car (or someone else's car) and I wasn't familiar with it. -- Are you telling me the car didn't have a speedometer?
As a brief interlude in our list, I saw this photo and had to add it to this post (update on 10/22/2011):
6. My car can't go that fast. -- One guy who told me this was driving a BMW 540, which has a top speed somewhere over 130 mph. He was charged with going 90. Almost every car on the road will go 90. Actually, the surgeon from #4 said this and I checked it out. According to the manufacturer the top speed was only 105, so maybe he was right, but 105 is still a bit illegal.
7. I was only going 78. Or another variation: No way I was going any faster than 80. -- I hear this one a lot. Still illegal folks.
8. I was just keeping up with traffic. -- Again, I hear this a lot. I could almost buy it at 75 in a 65, but not at 90 in a 55.
9. He pulled me over because my plates are from out of state. -- They write a lot of tickets to NY drivers.
10. I wasn't familiar with the road. -- So you were driving faster??
One excuse I've heard worked, but only because it was true. The Trooper followed the person after to make sure:
--I've got really bad diarrhea and I'm rushing to the next rest area.
No, that wasn't me. I heard it from a Trooper buddy.
Come to think of it, there is another one that works sometimes - if the speedometer was broken or there was some other equipment problem that might cause a speed problem. You have to back it up with an invoice from the shop that fixed the problem, and it won't always work. Don't expect this one to fly if you have a ticket over 90 mph. Even if your speedometer is broken, you should be able to recognize you're going that fast.
Update: Motivated by the Adrian Peterson speeding ticket, I'm adding a couple more excuses.
11. I didn't realize I was going that fast. This may make a little sense at 70 mph in a 55 zone, but it sounds idiotic at 125 mph. When you're going that fast, you should be paying attention.
12. I'm surprised I left this off my original list, but it relates well to #5 and #10. There's a bunch of variations:
I was lost.
I wasn't feeling well. - This is also often someone else in the car, like a kid, ... and one of my favorites:
It was foggy, I wasn't familiar with the road, I was lost, and I wasn't feeling well. (This guy was going 88 mph in a 45 mph work zone.) These are all good reasons to drive slower.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. I like to reassure my clients that this is not about justice. It's an unfair tax, and I'm really just a tax lawyer, working to reduce their taxes (in the form of fines, surcharges, assessments, and insurance rates - that's the subject of another blog post someday).
But some of my clients have to tell me their story. It's almost never a good story. Below I list a few of my favorite speeding ticket excuses that I can remember. They're not in any particular order.
-Update: See my new post on Adrian Peterson's speeding ticket-
1. I was going downhill. -- Strangely, the highway people don't increase the speed limit on downhill sections of road.
2. I have oversized tires. -- These guys usually say they were going downhill.
3. I was passing a truck. -- I must have missed that exception in the Vehicle & Traffic Law.
4. I was late and my wife was waiting for me. -- I could see some cops buying this one, but not at 107 mph. One guy who told me this was a heart surgeon.
5. It was a rental car (or someone else's car) and I wasn't familiar with it. -- Are you telling me the car didn't have a speedometer?
As a brief interlude in our list, I saw this photo and had to add it to this post (update on 10/22/2011):
6. My car can't go that fast. -- One guy who told me this was driving a BMW 540, which has a top speed somewhere over 130 mph. He was charged with going 90. Almost every car on the road will go 90. Actually, the surgeon from #4 said this and I checked it out. According to the manufacturer the top speed was only 105, so maybe he was right, but 105 is still a bit illegal.
7. I was only going 78. Or another variation: No way I was going any faster than 80. -- I hear this one a lot. Still illegal folks.
8. I was just keeping up with traffic. -- Again, I hear this a lot. I could almost buy it at 75 in a 65, but not at 90 in a 55.
9. He pulled me over because my plates are from out of state. -- They write a lot of tickets to NY drivers.
10. I wasn't familiar with the road. -- So you were driving faster??
One excuse I've heard worked, but only because it was true. The Trooper followed the person after to make sure:
--I've got really bad diarrhea and I'm rushing to the next rest area.
No, that wasn't me. I heard it from a Trooper buddy.
Come to think of it, there is another one that works sometimes - if the speedometer was broken or there was some other equipment problem that might cause a speed problem. You have to back it up with an invoice from the shop that fixed the problem, and it won't always work. Don't expect this one to fly if you have a ticket over 90 mph. Even if your speedometer is broken, you should be able to recognize you're going that fast.
Update: Motivated by the Adrian Peterson speeding ticket, I'm adding a couple more excuses.
11. I didn't realize I was going that fast. This may make a little sense at 70 mph in a 55 zone, but it sounds idiotic at 125 mph. When you're going that fast, you should be paying attention.
12. I'm surprised I left this off my original list, but it relates well to #5 and #10. There's a bunch of variations:
I was lost.
I wasn't feeling well. - This is also often someone else in the car, like a kid, ... and one of my favorites:
It was foggy, I wasn't familiar with the road, I was lost, and I wasn't feeling well. (This guy was going 88 mph in a 45 mph work zone.) These are all good reasons to drive slower.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
The paper trail
One issue I frequently see is clients not making a paper trail. The client will call me about a problem with their town, or someone they're dealing with on a contract.
The client will describe to me how they've talked to so-and-so on the phone, and the person says "x" and then doesn't do "x", or does "y" instead. For example, a town official tells them it's okay to build something, and then after they build it they come back and tell them they didn't have the right permit. Another example is when the other guy is supposed to pay you, but before payment he says he needs "x" documented. So you provide "x", and now he tells you he needs "y". Repeat ad nauseum.
Get it in writing! Or put it in writing. If you have a conversation about something important, and you have the slightest concern about the other person's reliability, send them a confirming letter.
"Thanks for speaking with me the other day. Following on your approval of this project, I will go ahead and start building. I really appreciate your assistance with my plans."
Notice the politeness. If you write in an aggressive tone, the person is more likely to respond in an unwelcome manner. This vaguely goes along with a line from a college buddy of mine -- "Sincerity is very important. If you can fake it, you've got it made."
Another tip is to include in your letter a self-addressed stamped envelope. Mention this in your letter: "Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I've enclosed an SASE for your convenience."
For extreme security, send the letter in a confirmable manner (FedEx, certified mail, etc.). Now they can't deny they got the letter.
If your problem goes to Court, your efforts to document the communication can be helpful. It will not always make the difference, and in some cases may not be admissible, but it will help in some cases. It's a lot better than: "But judge, he said ...".
The client will describe to me how they've talked to so-and-so on the phone, and the person says "x" and then doesn't do "x", or does "y" instead. For example, a town official tells them it's okay to build something, and then after they build it they come back and tell them they didn't have the right permit. Another example is when the other guy is supposed to pay you, but before payment he says he needs "x" documented. So you provide "x", and now he tells you he needs "y". Repeat ad nauseum.
Get it in writing! Or put it in writing. If you have a conversation about something important, and you have the slightest concern about the other person's reliability, send them a confirming letter.
"Thanks for speaking with me the other day. Following on your approval of this project, I will go ahead and start building. I really appreciate your assistance with my plans."
Notice the politeness. If you write in an aggressive tone, the person is more likely to respond in an unwelcome manner. This vaguely goes along with a line from a college buddy of mine -- "Sincerity is very important. If you can fake it, you've got it made."
Another tip is to include in your letter a self-addressed stamped envelope. Mention this in your letter: "Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I've enclosed an SASE for your convenience."
For extreme security, send the letter in a confirmable manner (FedEx, certified mail, etc.). Now they can't deny they got the letter.
If your problem goes to Court, your efforts to document the communication can be helpful. It will not always make the difference, and in some cases may not be admissible, but it will help in some cases. It's a lot better than: "But judge, he said ...".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)