Update on Traffic Ticket

[SusanLCD]

Some weeks ago, I posted a message about getting a ticket for "running a stop sign." The ticket has the comment "Crossdresser" written on it and many of you responded with feedback and opinions. Thank you very much for that support.

A few have asked me about the result. And, it may be helpful to others. So, here's how it played out. (It's lengthy, so, I won't be offended if you choose to spend your time elsewhere.)

In late June, I went to the courthouse and plead "not guilty." This cost nothing beyond 2 hours of my time. Any other plea (no contest or guilty) results in paying the court costs ($112) and fine ($160?). A "not guilty" plea got me a court date of 7/24 for my case. I realized that, if my case went to trial, I would be found guilty because it would be my word against the officer's. But, being unemployed, I wanted to preserve as much of my funds as possible for as long as possible.

In early July, I visited the same court to observe the processing of similar cases. I saw that most people were represented by attorneys; some were not. For those that had attorneys, the attorney met with the Prosecutor and made whatever arrangements had been agreed with their clients. Those without a lawyer sat with the Prosecutor and made the best bargain they could for themselves. It seemed to me that a lawyer was inexpensive insurance (about $45 for this type of case). I mentally selected one that appeared to be working energetically for his clients. (Hired him, later.)

On that day, all of the cases were either dismissed or a plea bargain was reached with the Prosecutor. (Dismissed means "not guilty" and no costs. Plea bargain means being found guilty and paying the costs and fine. Then, defensive driving or deferred adjudication are options to keep it off the driving record.) I saw no one "going to trial."

When my day in court came, I showed up (en drab, by the way) at the appointed time and sat among the other 25 or so defendants. I looked for (but, never saw) my attorney. The court convened and roll was called for the docket. Then, paperwork processing ensued among Prosecutor, attorneys, bailiff, judge, et al for about 45 minutes. During that time, various people shuffled in and out of the courtroom, but, none of that involved me. Just lots of people doing their jobs.

Then, after about an hour, the judge began calling names of the defendants, one by one. Each filed to the front of the court and spoke with the bailiff. My name was early in the roster and when it was called, the bailiff asked me if I was represented by an attorney. I said yes, although I hadn't seen him, yet, that morning. The bailiff told me that my case was dismissed and I was free to go.

I wasted no time leaving....... I have no idea what happened with the remainder of the defendants. I'm confident many were dismissed, much like me.

I feel confident that my attorney must have already reviewed my case (and, probably, many others) with the prosecutor, earlier. There was no discussion of the "crossdresser" notation on the ticket. In fact, I was not a party to any discussion in the courtroom, at all. The only conversation I had with anyone was the one I had on the phone with my attorney's office assistant when I hired him. And, that lasted about 10 minutes, including the time it took to provide a credit card number for the attorney's fee.

A "glass half-full" person will say "$45 well spent." A "half-empty" person will say "this is just an excuse for the city to collect fees from those who can't afford it." Those who've read my other posts will know that I tend to be a half-full person.

I saw no evidence that anyone (police officer; court clerk; prosecutor; attorney; etc.) cared that I was a crossdresser. On the day of the ticket, the officer treated me as well as I believe would have been the case for anyone else. And, no one else in the system even mentioned it, despite it being prominently readable on the ticket.

Maybe there truly ARE bigger concerns in the world.

[Michelle Crossfire]

Traffic tickets rarely, if ever, go to trial. it is almost always a plea bargain or not guilty finding. those with attorneys simply work out a plea bargain. This is not really about safety and law enforcement, but more of a revenue raising for the city or municipality. They even budget for this, and in the case of village of Linndale, OH, (if you live near Cleveland, you know about Linndale), it makes up nearly 75% of the village's budget. Most people settle it without a trial, as it is merely a nuisance more than anything to them (time off work, go to court, sit around and wait, etc). if you have an attorney, you usually won't be a party to any discussions with the prosecutor, the attorney does all that.

Glad to see that your case was dismissed. who care why.

[GaleWarning]

I'm impressed with the amount of time and preparation you put in, Susan. Paid off, in the end.
Obviously, your discernment in choosing a good defence attorney isn't bad either!
Happy for you!

[Eryn]

Consider it in terms of what's important to the authorities involved. In the time the cop would sit in court for your case he could have written two or three additional tickets if he was back at that intersection. They lost the revenue from you but probably made two or three times that on the additional tickets. In the meantime, guilty or not, you were punished by loss of your time, lawyers fees, and the inconvenience of jumping through the legal hoops.

Unfortunately, no defendant wins in these cases since those working against you aren't putting anything on the table. You just hope to escape with something left in your wallet.

[Stephanie47]

Sometimes the courts realize the person wanting to have their day in court for what appears to be a simple matter are really there because they honestly feel they are innocent/mot guilty. It is a matter of principle. I went to traffic court as a youth to witness the proceedings when my father fought a failure to stop. My father had his day in court with his family present. The New York State trooper outright lied and provided false testimony. The traffic court judge knew the layout of the location of the on ramp to the highway. He caught the trooper in his lie. He immediately dismissed the case and told the trooper to stay behind. I assume he was reamed. The trooper could have easily told the truth due to the circumstances of issuing the citation. He choose to lie on a really simple matter. Since then (fifty years ago) I always wonder, "If a copy will lie in court about a simple traffic ticket, why would he not lie about a felony." And, as a retired federal agent there were several times when I was told a case would be stronger if the accused had said-----. Stand up for your rights when you are right.

Susan, you did the right thing, even if you would have not prevailed.

[Vickie_CDTV]

They didn't care you were a crossdresser, all they wanted was to extort money from you. I guess there is a silver lining in there... somewhere.

[monalisa]

Unfortunately the courts and attorneys and the municipalities are all in a fund raising system. The attorneys make money and the municipalities make money. It is not to make you a better or safer driver.

[girlygirly]

Unfortunately the courts and attorneys and the municipalities are all in a fund raising system. The attorneys make money and the municipalities make money. It is not to make you a better or safer driver.

Yes, I have to agree. The birth of speed cameras and red light cameras makes it pretty clear, they want all of our money. Anyone who has ever been arrested for a DUI after only one or two cocktails would agree with you, too. I have a friend who was recently locked up in a drunk driving roadblock. His BAC was only .06%, and he had just left a gathering of friends where everyone says he was fine and appeared sober. The cops said he "appeared drunk", and the statute here is written so that anything above .05% is left to the officer's discretion. Pot laws are kinda the same, they'll never legalize it if they can avoid doing so, because that would send a third of the courthouse looking for a job.

[jillleanne]

Thank you Susan for the update. I was often curious where this went, and no surprise in your post. Many scenarios could have occurred; we'll never know. Could be as you suggest, a conversation already took place behind closed doors. NO intelligent judge, wants their name spread across the news media regarding a driving violation that clearly has the word "crossdresser" written on it, should that information ever get public. If you showed up in court with a 'not guilty' plea, with a lawyer, one could reasonably assume you would be willing to take this public and make a huge issue of it, something the judge would not want a part in, all because of a couple of hundred bucks lost to the coffers. They'll just take their licks and move on to the next victim on the list.

[max]

Funny how people know this is a scam yet the council members who institute these policies keep getting elected.

[Stephanie Michelle]

Normally if your lawyer was to talk with the prosecutor, it is the night of court. What happened most likely is the officer that gave you the ticket was not in there to testify against you so the prosecutor dropped the charges. I would ask the lawyer what he did and why he wasn't in court. I wouldn't pay him for nothing.

[darla_g]

I've gone to court on tow occasions for traffic infractions. In neither case did i get a lawyer. In both cases I was found guilty but the charge was reduced resulting in a fine, but no points which is the important thing. Points on your license in MD results in higher insurance costs for three years which is the real killer.

[TGMarla]

I'm sure your assessment, that no one cared about the "crossdresser" reference on the ticket, is correct. It had absolutely no bearing on the case, and was included only because the narrow-minded cop felt it necessary to point fingers and call it out.

[BLUE ORCHID]

Hi Susan, look at it this way, for the price of a pair of shoes you saved your good driving record and your insurance record.

[Genny B]

In the traffic courts I have been to I notice many women in low cut tops and getting found 'Not Guilty'. Another reason to crossdress?

[GaleWarning]

In the traffic courts I have been to I notice many women in low cut tops and getting found 'Not Guilty'. Another reason to crossdress?

Only if you have ample boobs, Genny. I don't.

The only time I felt agrieved about being given a traffic ticket, I challenged the officer in court. The judge sent another officer out to check the facts as I stated them (to do with the positioning of the meter). An hour or so later, I was declared "not guilty".

If you are in the right, there hould be no need to "persuade" the judge.

Susan was in the right. She acted sensibly to clear her name. Too bad it cost her money AND time.

[NicoleScott]

It's good for you that the case was dismissed. Still, I'd want to know why the cop thought it was necessary to write "crossdresser" on the ticket. What if he had written "black" or "Mexican" or "effeminate" or "redneck".....etc...etc...?

[shayleetv]

I saw on the news sometime back where a smiley or frowny face had been been put on the copy that the traffic judge got of the traffic tickets in some jurisdiction to let the judge know about how the receiver of the ticket acted when getting the ticket. A defense attorney sued the court and the police for putting inappropriate and prejudicial comments on the ticket and the district court struck down all the tickets that had faces put on them and the jurisdiction had to repay all the fines which amounted to almost 2mil$. Maybe your attorney cited the prejudicial comment of "crossdresser" and since it was on the ticket for the court to see the prosecutor dropped the case to keep it out of court. It would be interesting to find out how he got the ticket dismissed if that wasn't the case. That comment has no relevance as to the merits of the ticket. What you wear doesn't cause you to run a stop sign unless your heels got tangled up in the flour mat and you couldn't hit your brake in time.