# Information For NOOBS Fighting a ticket



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*TRAFFIC FINES, SURCHARGES ARE BIG BUCKS*










Trooper John Coflesky left and Court Clerk Whitney Brown listen as Jeffrey McCob of Leominster testifies during a traffic ticket hearing in Gardner District Court. (T&G Staff Photos / RICK CINCLAIR)

*By Danielle M. Williamson TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF*
[email protected]

*34 comments* | Add a comment











From left, Linda LaFreniere of Gardner, Barbie Holman of New Hampshire, and Linda Swenson of Worcester wait for traffic hearings in Gardner District Court. (T&G Staff/RICK CINCLAIR)

Jeffrey McCob went to Gardner District Court this week with a $100 ticket hanging over his head. A month earlier, he had been pulled over on Route 2 for obstructing an emergency vehicle.

After making his case to Clerk Magistrate Whitney J. Brown, the Leominster resident was found not responsible and the ticket was dismissed. By challenging the ticket, Mr. McCob lost a couple of hours in travel and court time. It was certainly preferable, however, to paying the $100 and related insurance surcharges.

"If these types of tickets only came with a fine, maybe I'd have let it go," Mr. McCob said. "But you're paying a lot more than the fine."

Armed with the knowledge that more than 250,000 tickets for civil motor vehicle infractions were challenged in the state last fiscal year, legislators have voted to charge drivers $25 for such hearings. The budget Gov. Deval L. Patrick signed into law this week includes the change, which took effect yesterday, according to Trial Court spokeswoman Joan Kenney.

So, if Mr. McCob got pulled over today, with the same outcome after a clerk hearing, he'd still be out $25.

Local drivers who contested tickets at Gardner District Court, however, said the fine wouldn't deter them from fighting tickets. Paying $25 to potentially get out of hundreds of dollars in fines and surcharges is worth it, they say.

"I'd still be here," Mr. McCob said after his hearing. "That wouldn't change my decision."

State Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, was a member of the conference committee that discussed attaching a cost to clerk hearings. Legislators estimate the change will yield $5 million this fiscal year in revenue, all of which will be returned to the court system's budget.

By law, drivers who receive tickets for civil motor vehicle infractions are entitled to a hearing with a clerk magistrate. Until this fiscal year, which started Wednesday, there has been no cost to drivers who want to plead their case in front of a clerk, though it does cost $20 for drivers who lose the clerk hearing and want a second appeal with a judge.

With trial courts collectively taking an $18 million hit this year, Mr. Brewer said, "This provides a measure of restoration."

"Is it fun? Is it something I'm happy about? Heck no," Mr. Brewer said. "But there's a mountain of things we're not happy about because of the hand we were dealt."

None of the area drivers interviewed was aware of the impending change. Gardner resident Linda LaFreniere, who got a speeding ticket in Westminster recently, believes it's wrong.

"You have to pay for the right to appeal? Forget it; that's not right," she said while awaiting her hearing with the clerk. "Why should I have to pay to contest something I feel is wrong to begin with?"

Barbie Holman of Hampton Falls, N.H., was pulled over on Route 2 in May, after failing to move to the left lane while a police car was in the breakdown lane. Her ticket was dismissed after she told the clerk she was unaware of the relatively new requirement for vehicles to move as far away as possible from parked emergency vehicles.

She said people who win their appeal should not have to pay the $25 fine.

"If you're found not at fault, you should be cleared of all of it," Ms. Holman said. "If that's not the case, then it seems police could be pulling people over for all sorts of things."










*34 comments* | Add a comment

Telegram.com - A product of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

What a scam.


----------



## Rock (Mar 20, 2005)

kwflatbed said:


> "Why should I have to pay to contest something I feel is wrong to begin with?"


 What exactly do you feel is wrong? The fact that you ran that red light and almost slammed into a mini van full of small children or is it wrong that you got caught doing so?

Douche bag


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Regardless of the validity of the ticket, people have a right to contest it. Taxes pay for our court system, which is inflated and inefficient to begin with. Instead of finding ways to better utilize a budget like the rest of us have to, this state just comes up with new ways to take our money. To charge a fee for this hearing process is a shameless money grab, in a state based on shameless money grabbing. I'd agree with the poster in the other thread who said they should just charge $25 bucks when they pull you over, but in this state, Id never make it across town.
Sure, most tickets are validly issued and the operators are guilty, but the right to contest it is the quid-pro-quo for that process in our society. And it doesnt come with a price tag.


----------



## jbarrett (Mar 9, 2007)

LawMan3 said:


> Moral of the story....
> 
> Don't drive like an a-hole and you won't have to pay $25. End of story.


I completely agree. It's always bothered me that MV Violators get two bites at the apple (for appeals), as well. They get to question the officer's competence and integrity, not once, but twice! Fees don't bother me at all.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

They forgot to add that they pay another $50 to see the judge. $75 for an appeal, nice. No more warnings, maybe it will reinstate Quinn Bill funding.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2009)

Violators? Isn't the point of a hearing to prove you aren't, in reality, in violation of anything?

I think part of your problem here, jbarett, is that you think a person requesting a traffic hearing is a personal offense. Questioning the officer's integrity? Certainly not. Questioning their judgement in that particular scenario? Absolutely; it's their right, and it's your responsibility to respect their argument and make your case in front of a judge. You don't get to just make your own decision on the spot and have that be the end of it, because believe it or not, a lot of cases get thrown out because the officer did indeed make a bad call. Point being, I don't think you get to call everyone who is contesting a ticket a "violator."

Bottom line is, there will always be good drivers receiving the occasional bogus ticket, and it's unfair to ding them with a fee they should not have to pay.


----------



## SPINMASS (Jan 30, 2004)

I'm guessing we probably won't see justice appeals on the 25 and 35 dollar citations like we used too. Thats a shame because I really liked the overtime.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

I would agree that 99% of tickets are valid but there is a presumtion of innocense and at the very minimum the first hearing shouldnt be charged, I dont have an issue with subsequent appeals being charged though.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

Nope screw em all


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Red-Helix said:


> Violators? Isn't the point of a hearing to prove you aren't, in reality, in violation of anything?
> 
> I think part of your problem here, jbarett, is that you think a person requesting a traffic hearing is a personal offense. Questioning the officer's integrity? Certainly not. Questioning their judgement in that particular scenario? Absolutely; it's their right, and it's your responsibility to respect their argument and make your case in front of a judge. You don't get to just make your own decision on the spot and have that be the end of it, because believe it or not, a lot of cases get thrown out because the officer did indeed make a bad call. Point being, I don't think you get to call everyone who is contesting a ticket a "violator."
> 
> Bottom line is, there will always be good drivers receiving the occasional bogus ticket, and it's unfair to ding them with a fee they should not have to pay.


Opinions are like assholes everone has one,and you have just proven NOOBS in ask a cop are assholes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2009)

Well... are you going to back that up with a counterpoint or are you just going to curse up a storm whenever someone disagrees?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2009)

I think this is a 2 sided coin. Yes the state is looking to stir up revenue, but I bet they are also trying to deter people from appealing as well to alieviate the burden on the courts. I think this is the same reason we are seeing OAS become a CIVIL infraction. How many times have you guys gone into court for a Judge's Appeal, only to have to sit and listen to the CRIM stuff first. All that BS shit is broomed right away with proof of fines being paid and a quick court fee. The judges are tired of that I am sure.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

I think this is also the magistrates fault. From my department's hundreds of suspensions and revoked insurance cases that went to hearings, almost 90 percent or more were dismissed with no fines. That is absolute garbage, millions of dollars were never collected. Same will happen with this, a $500 ticket will be found not responsible or reduced to $50.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Red-Helix said:


> Well... are you going to back that up with a counterpoint or are you just going to curse up a storm whenever someone disagrees?


There is nothing to back up everyone that posts their story's on ask 
a cop is innocent LOL they are all good drivers that never do anything
wrong and the cops always are making a mistake stoping them.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

I think the way to solve this is to up the fee to $50 but refund it back if you're found NR.


----------



## SPINMASS (Jan 30, 2004)

Since Red-Helix now has to pay to appeal all his tickets, he figuered he would come here and get a free bus ride!


----------



## jettsixx (Dec 10, 2005)

I will no longer be writing warnings, also I dont know about any of you, but when I get a OAS and there is another licensed driver. I say tow the car anyway. The licensed driver wasnt operating the vehicle so why not give the tow company some work?


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

I might be wrong (happened once or twice in my life) but I believe there is case law saying that towing the car is a last resort. I would take that to mean that if the violator agrees to letting a licensed operator take control of the vehicle you don't really have a choice.


----------



## jettsixx (Dec 10, 2005)

I should have figured in this state that would be true. You know they never want to let us have any say in what happens. Either way no more warnings for anything.


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

Couldn't agree with you more there.


----------



## NEPS (Aug 29, 2006)

justanotherparatrooper said:


> I would agree that 99% of tickets are valid but there is a presumtion of innocense and at the very minimum the first hearing shouldnt be charged, I dont have an issue with subsequent appeals being charged though.


I agree. I don't mind a fee to appeal the magistrate's decision to a judge, but there is just something wrong with having to accept the judgment of a police officer regarding the facts and the law with no review by a neutral person unless you pay a fee. We make mistakes at least once in a great while.

And I am no noob. I've been on the job for over two decades, have written more tickets when I was a patrolman than most, and have represented the PD at magistrate's hearings and seen every... well, let's just say that I have seen it. Still, if not for basic fairness, at least so as to give the public the illusion that the People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not a police state (go figure), motorists should get _one_ bite at the apple without a fee.


----------



## wallymc8 (Mar 3, 2007)

Red-Helix said:


> You don't get to just make your own decision on the spot and have that be the end of it, because believe it or not, a lot of cases get thrown out because the officer did indeed make a bad call. Point being, I don't think you get to call everyone who is contesting a ticket a "violator."
> 
> Bottom line is, there will always be good drivers receiving the occasional bogus ticket, and it's unfair to ding them with a fee they should not have to pay.


I love how when they are found not responsible they think that means the officer was wrong. I hate to break it to you, but in our court, unless you have a 20 page history, you are most likely getting a NR. Same as a warning isnt any less responsible than a civil. Just because one of my citations is found to be NR doesnt mean the magistrate thought i made a mistake or a "bad call". I dont think i would last too long if i were stopping people all day long with no violations.

I think the deal is, people get so many breaks that when they do get written, its a "bogus ticket". I could write you every time i saw you going ten over. Would i be an a-hole? Yes, but it wouldn't be a bogus ticket.

As far as the fee goes, I think that people should have the right to appeal without paying a fee. If they want to add one on if they are found responsible than that would be fine, but if they are NR, let them go.


----------



## SPINMASS (Jan 30, 2004)

> I might be wrong (happened once or twice in my life) but I believe there is case law saying that towing the car is a last resort. I would take that to mean that if the violator agrees to letting a licensed operator take control of the vehicle you don't really have a choice.


Their was something mentioned in in-service about not running the passenger just to see if they are licensed. If that is the case I am not giving them control of the car so it is going to have to be towed.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

Speeding ticket 10 miles over = $50
Head Surcharge = $50
Maj Appeal = $25
Judge Appeal = $50
Living in Mass = Priceless


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Now, would I qualify for the head injury payment if my injury occured while slamming my head off the magistrate's desk in frustration?


----------



## NickAngel (Jun 26, 2009)

I would definitely be in favor of this if one of the following things happened:

as someone mentioned earlier, getting that fee waived if you win the appeal

OR

If you win the appeal, the officer has to pay YOU $25 for wasting your time going to court and all that horseshit.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2009)

NickAngel said:


> If you win the appeal, the officer has to pay YOU $25 for wasting your time going to court and all that horseshit.


Why not? We already pay taxes so you can sit home and play Wii Masturbate.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2009)

LawMan3 said:


> I noticed mr. n00b helix hasn't chimed in lately......


 What, do I have to meet a quota? I spent the weekend in Maine

On Friday I wrote a nice long post describing a personal anecdote where my fiance and three complete strangers discovered an officer who was deliberately trolling a miscalibrated traffic light, but the admin(s) apparently didn't see fit to let that go up. Too damning I guess.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2009)

wallymc8 said:


> I think the deal is, people get so many breaks that when they do get written, its a "bogus ticket". I could write you every time i saw you going ten over. Would i be an a-hole? Yes, but it wouldn't be a bogus ticket.


Hm, and here I was thinking speeding tickets were around to encourage safety


----------



## Penguin (Dec 1, 2008)

Hey Kid just so you know, poking a hornets nest with a stick is probably smarter than your return. I could be wrong, but feel free to whack away and learn.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2009)

Thanks Penguin, I'll be sure to save a copy of that post. For my personal records. Y'know, just in case.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Red-Helix said:


> What, do I have to meet a quota? I spent the weekend in Maine
> 
> On Friday I wrote a nice long post describing a personal anecdote where my fiance and three complete strangers discovered an officer who was deliberately trolling a miscalibrated traffic light, but the admin(s) apparently didn't see fit to let that go up. Too damning I guess.


So, you're a traffic engineer?


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2009)

dcs2244 said:


> So, you're a traffic engineer?


The yellow was less than 2 seconds on a 40mph stretch, so out of curiosity I got in touch with someone at the DPW and learned the light was scheduled to be worked on.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

To quote a wise man (or Wolfman) "Stop being such a whiny bitch"


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

wallymc8 said:


> I think the deal is, people get so many breaks that when they do get written, its a "bogus ticket". I could write you every time i saw you going ten over. Would i be an a-hole? Yes, but it wouldn't be a bogus ticket.


 Why does it have to be ten over...hell, you could stop for 31 in a 30mph zone.

While assigned to traffic enforcment, I once had a guy in front of me who I clocked about 7 or so over, and he ran a red light in front of me. I stopped him with the intention of giving him a warning and his mouth earned him a $200 citation for the light and the 7 mph over.

I would never have written anyone else for the infraction, but that guy earned it...one mile over is all you need, and there is absolutely no defense for it under 90/18.



Red-Helix said:


> The yellow was less than 2 seconds on a 40mph stretch, so out of curiosity I got in touch with someone at the DPW and learned the light was scheduled to be worked on.


Yeah, because I have absolutely nothing better to do like answer calls for B&E's and go to domestics. Instead, I whip out my stopwatch and time yellow lights.


----------

