Every once in a great while, someone will ask me “Hey, what qualifies you to speak on traffic court matters?”. My answer is always the same: “My record of acquittals, dismissals and lack of convictions speaks for itself.” Like most attorneys, I have lost some cases - but I win most a majority of them. I write about my tickets on SITCIOT because I think it shows readers two things: 1). You can win traffic cases if you put some effort forward and 2). You know the track record in Court of the person your conversing with on this site.
In the instant case (State v. Kimmel, Cleveland County [Oklahoma] District Court, Case No. TR-2007-2026) - which I previously wrote about for SITCIOT - I was set for JT (Jury Trial) this morning at 8:30 AM. The docket had 27 parties on the rolls today, so it was going to be a busy day. Normally, a court calls the docket in alphabetical order (sorted by last name, first name) and when they called my case first, I knew something was up. Once I got up there, the prosecutor immediately moved for a continuance, stating that “the officer that wrote the ticket is a motorcycle cop, is not present because he was side-swiped by a semi and is currently in the hospital”. Now, my recollection of the incident was that the officer was in a regular cruiser, a fact which I have not confirmed (but will in the unlikely event that the case is re-filed) so that made me question the story to myself.
Of course, I did what any knowledgeable Pro Se Defendant does in a traffic case when the cop does not show up: I immediately moved for a dismissal for want (lack) of prosecution and/or failure of the state to produce the complaining witness. Without the complaining witness, there is no case because as a Defendant, I have the right confront and question my accuser in a Court of law and if he isn’t there, thats just not really possible. The court had little choice but to grant the motion (and did so, dismissing the case without costs) but did remind me that the case was being dismissed without prejudice against refiling the charges. Rarely does this happen, since the sheriff then needs to serve me with a new summons and complaint, an expense and hassle rarely undertaken. Thus the case went away and I left the court house - wallet unmolested.
This post does have a purpose (in addition to tooting my own horn) as well as a point: the state vehemently contested my right to a jury trial only to ultimately fail to prosecute the case. Then, they attempted a last ditch effort to save the case by attempting (and thankfully, failed) to convince a judge that a continuance should be granted. Had they won the right to continue the trial, I would have been forced to come - yet again - to the Court and make my case.
Of course, in other cases, this is not the first time that a cop has failed to show up. In fact, I win roughly half of my cases by simply showing up and the cop not showing up. Most who make a practice of taking EVERY case to court report about roughly the same experience, though some areas are better for no-show dismissals than others.
Today’s appearance was the second time I had appeared to address the issue. If the case were to be continued, I’d have to appear yet again at a date to be determined. Being self employed and the owner of my own business, that would have meant clearing another day on the calender of obligations so that I could go and defend my rights and prevent the state from molesting my wallet and in the process depriving me of $206.50, the fine for violations of O.S. §47-11.310. Is this fair to me to have to continuely do this because a cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket because he thinks I followed too closely? Moreover, is it fair for officers to pull over 100s or even 1000s of motorists every day across the country and throw these citations out there and hope enough stick to make it profitable? I submit that it is not.
Now granted - if the prosecution’s claim was legitimate - this one was beyond their control and the nice thing to do would have been to let them have their continuance in the interest of playing fairly. But I decided not to do that any longer because I know the State would not show a similar consideration for me if the roles were reversed. Another reason for my general hardliner approach to these types of issues has to do with the fact that the officer did the same when he issued his ticket. At the traffic stop, he was belligerent and had a know-it-all attitude, and told me in no uncertain terms that I was following too closely. When I asked him to explain how my following distance (which I - of course - thought was reasonable, proper and just for the situation - as required by the statute), he responded with “Sir, I’m not going to explain anything to you, I don’t have to.” which caused me to respond with “Fine, spare me your lecture and just give me my ticket.”
As for my “the state would have done the same position”, here is my reasoning: If my car breaks down, or I have some other pressing matter to attend to and I miss my trial date they will put out a warrant for my arrest for contempt of court and send an order to the Department of Public Safety instructing them to suspend my license. They remind you of this on every form you fill out that if you don’t show up, you’re going to jail. So in summary, if I don’t show up, my license gets cut up, I get a warrant for my arrest issued and when I am picked up, I go to jail. If they don’t show up, do they get a warrant, contempt citation or have their license revoked? Nope. The only consequence of not showing up is not winning and not being able to collect that back door tax. Are they made to pay for the lives they disrupted so they could run their little shell game? Not a chance.
Today’s traffic court system is stacked against the Defendant. It is designed to be a rubber stamp to the mandate of the politicians and the insurance lobbyists for the collection of back door taxes through the insurance of citations and fines. Its a throw everything at the wall and something will stick, bazooka type of approach. Some cases will be lost but enough will be won - or people wont even bother to take them to Court in the first place, opting instead to just mail the check using the self-addressed envelope provided with the ticket - to make it worth the trouble. Plenty of other Defendants have been victims of bazooka traffic citation writing campaigns.
My advice to all traffic Defendants is as follows: fight like hell, take advantage of every opportunity to win, protect your rights no matter what the cost or the hassle and don’t look back. Because you can bet the State would do the same to you if given the chance.
The situation will not get better by moaning about it or by making the citations go away by mailing in the checks. The situation will only get better by jumping down into the trenches, getting some dirt on your starched shirt and some grease on your hands and fighting each battle as though life itself hung in the balance and making it clear that you’re fed up and you’re not going to take it anymore. And thus you have the general principles that resulted in the original decision to launch SITCIOT.
Simply put, the primary goal of SITCIOT is to get people educated, then get them off the couch, off their duffs and into their courthouses to stand up for themselves and demand that the wholesale violation of our rights be put to an end. Thats the primal force that drives SITCIOT.
Like Smokey the Bear has said, “Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires”, SITCIOT is here to say “Only You Can Prevent Government Fraud”.
