Anyone who has represented themselves in court fighting a traffic infringement...

[fourseven]

Please PM me.

Thanks.

[Brockas]

Shouldn't this be something for Internal Affairs?

[fourseven]

Lol piss off.

Specifically would love to hear from people who have cross examined Police re evidence of traffic infringement.

[TurboHead]

I have - got off a reckless driving charge but mainly because I had a lucky trump card drop in my lap that pretty much proved the cop made the whole thing up.

[TurboHead]

Cross examining is not easy - magistrate said on a few occasions that the "officers integrity is not on trial" even though I ended up proving he was a lying pingpingping..... Had something to do with me asking him questions about what I "allegedly" did, which he recalled in vivid detail, but when I dropped in the "what colour was my car?" Question and "was my car a wagon, sedan or hatch?" And the cop sat there looking dumb.... But he brought it on himself fabricating his statement.

[beatle]

I have, will not do again.
will send pm tomorrow while I'm on a pc if you'd like to hear more.

[[FL0SSIN]]

I did!! Lost my licence for 9 months.... My advice will not be forwarded lol...

[Evman]

Just remember if you fail then you get convicted of an offence and that stays with you for 10 years before you can have it spent. Traffic convictions are different to criminal convictions (which will prevent you going into some countries, etc) but none the less it's on the record.

[TurboHead]

^ exactly... I only contested because I thought I had a case I couldn't lose... But the system is not in your favour. Luck just fell my way at each step.

[bgtx3]

www.aussiespeedingfines.com is your friend.

[fourseven]

Received tonnes of PMs and appreciate the posts... I'll put my situation out there so people are familiar with what I am dealing with.

I received an infringement for crossing a continuous white edge line on Reid Highway. The traffic was stopped at a red traffic light heading straight, so when an SUV came down the emergency lane, I followed him to turn left onto the freeway. In front of me an unmarked Police vehicle pulled out to pull him over and I immediately knew I was going to get pulled over too. They pulled him over, jumped out of the car and signaled me to stop and got another car that followed me into the emergency lane as well. All 3 of us got the same infringement. The regulation from the Road Traffic Code: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rtc2000113/s129.html

I'm of the opinion that subregulation 3 applies as I was entering an intersection and leaving a carriageway and I was well within 100m.

I spoke to Jeremy Noble who said that he is happy to help, however setting aside a day in court for trial will cost around $3000 and he guarantees they'll drop the charge on the morning of the court date which means I won't be able to recover costs but his bill will still need to be paid. He has suggested I represent myself which I intend on doing and obviously pleading not guilty. I will subpoena the Commissioner of Police for the details of the other 2 vehicles so I can present them as witnesses. I will also subpoena the radio/tech branch as I want the automatic vehicle locator records.

I'm well aware that they need to prove that I committed the offence. I've spoken to our lawyer at work who has given me some great advice, however the cross-examination is what I'm concerned about.

Some questions I've come up with:

If I was in the emergency lane, where else would I be going but entering the intersection to turn left?
If I was in the emergency lane, where else would I be going but leaving the carriageway?
If I wasn't within 100m of traveling on the white edged line, with what tape measure did you determine this distance?
How did she know I wasn't stopping at the side of the road or on the shoulder, but had to move because of the vehicle approaching behind me?

The problem is I have no idea if these will play out the way I plan. I also have no idea what else I can reasonably ask to prove that I'm not guilty.

If anyone has any specific experience in this then I would love to hear from you!


Cross examining is not easy - magistrate said on a few occasions that the "officers integrity is not on trial" even though I ended up proving he was a lying pingpingping..... Had something to do with me asking him questions about what I "allegedly" did, which he recalled in vivid detail, but when I dropped in the "what colour was my car?" Question and "was my car a wagon, sedan or hatch?" And the cop sat there looking dumb.... But he brought it on himself fabricating his statement.

Did the magistrate provide any assistance at all with your line of questioning, other than telling you off for asking/saying something wrong? What did you ask that prompted him to state the officer's integrity was not on trial?

[Floyd]

Can't just say that your vehicle was actually breaking down hence the use of the emergency lane?

+ don't you work for wapol? Can't pull some bullshit like you were apprehending a criminal?

[TurboHead]

My magistrate was very patient with me and thinking back, let me get away with a lot, but questions that suggest the officer was wrong, lying, a space cadet etc is what got her back up. My advice is think about those sort of questions and how to word them where you don't have to ask them direct and have sufficient evidence to support your argument without that type of questioning. Also getting documents from the commissioner is not as easy as it sounds. I had to do that as well (a crash report that happened in front of me when I was pulled over) and while they brought the docs to court, they wouldn't let me look at them due to confidentiality. I had to explain what I needed the docs for and the magistrate let me use a phone in court and ordered the officer to call the witness i needed on my behalf. Once I got on the phone,the officer started to destroy the details on the report so I asked the person on the phone to provide me with their contact details again and wrote it down myself..... If there was no phone number or they didn't answer the phone, I would have been screwed.

[_S9_]

I'm well aware that they need to prove that I committed the offence.

Not based on my experience. The officer's testimony just saying "you did xyz" is enough in court.

They are sworn officers of the law, and as such had their ability to lie removed from their brains. What they say is more truthful than you.

Good luck!

[sensei_]

They are sworn officers of the law, and as such had their ability to lie removed from their brains. What they say is more truthful than you.

sad but true. also the fact that you cannot claim cost/damages is another "win" for the system. even if you are innocent you are guilty.

[ReaperSS]

I heard that if you take it to court and loose it will go on your permanent criminal record?
Not sure if true but if it is then be careful

[Turbo2.6L]

Successfully represented myself in a no seatbelt case. Get as many witnesses as possible & make them recant the entire story, chances are they will either recite it as per their report or leave out important facts, either way it wont look good for them.

[V70R]

Lol piss off.

Specifically would love to hear from people who have cross examined Police re evidence of traffic infringement.
I have. Won first time.

Will pm soon :)

[brynj]

If watching Suits has taught me anything, it'd be that the purpose of questioning isn't to open yourself up to multiple outcomes but rather pose rhetorical questions that require a simple or factual answer that you already know. The facts should be established, then the sub-regulation could be referenced pointing out the exact phrases the police officer has just confirmed.

IMO your questions require answers that are longer than a simple yes/no and therefore present too many variables for you.
You could start by speaking about the layout of the road and getting a 'yes' answer for the fact you were waiting with traffic banked up at an intersection.
Question rhetorically that cars may cross the white line within 100m of an approaching intersection, with a true/false proposition.
Then something that proves waiting traffic could only lead to the direction of travel ie. turning left or traveling straight.

Then it'd be a matter of saying something like 'so from your answers it is true a vehicle may cross a continuous white line given this situation, and you've confirmed my car has met the criteria within sub-regulation 3 of blah blah.'

/not an actual lawyer

[Gonzola]

All i can think from that is the cop that wrote you up is a total pingpingpingping.

[fourseven]

If watching Suits has taught me anything, it'd be that the purpose of questioning isn't to open yourself up to multiple outcomes but rather pose rhetorical questions that require a simple or factual answer that you already know. The facts should be established, then the sub-regulation could be referenced pointing out the exact phrases the police officer has just confirmed.

IMO your questions require answers that are longer than a simple yes/no and therefore present too many variables for you.
You could start by speaking about the layout of the road and getting a 'yes' answer for the fact you were waiting with traffic banked up at an intersection.
Question rhetorically that cars may cross the white line within 100m of an approaching intersection, with a true/false proposition.
Then something that proves waiting traffic could only lead to the direction of travel ie. turning left or traveling straight.

Then it'd be a matter of saying something like 'so from your answers it is true a vehicle may cross a continuous white line given this situation, and you've confirmed my car has met the criteria within sub-regulation 3 of blah blah.'

/not an actual lawyer

Yeah I thought about this more last night. Thanks for your input... My questions certainly need rewording and some more thought!


My magistrate was very patient with me and thinking back, let me get away with a lot, but questions that suggest the officer was wrong, lying, a space cadet etc is what got her back up. My advice is think about those sort of questions and how to word them where you don't have to ask them direct and have sufficient evidence to support your argument without that type of questioning. Also getting documents from the commissioner is not as easy as it sounds. I had to do that as well (a crash report that happened in front of me when I was pulled over) and while they brought the docs to court, they wouldn't let me look at them due to confidentiality. I had to explain what I needed the docs for and the magistrate let me use a phone in court and ordered the officer to call the witness i needed on my behalf. Once I got on the phone,the officer started to destroy the details on the report so I asked the person on the phone to provide me with their contact details again and wrote it down myself..... If there was no phone number or they didn't answer the phone, I would have been screwed.

That's fucked.

The lawyer has told me that it won't be easy, but I can keep asking for adjournments until I get exactly what I want to my satisfaction?


All i can think from that is the cop that wrote you up is a total pingpingpingping.

Traffic Enforcement Group. She was saving the world. Nuff said really!

[pgc]

If watching Suits has taught me anything, it'd be that the purpose of questioning isn't to open yourself up to multiple outcomes but rather pose rhetorical questions that require a simple or factual answer that you already know. The facts should be established, then the sub-regulation could be referenced pointing out the exact phrases the police officer has just confirmed.

IMO your questions require answers that are longer than a simple yes/no and therefore present too many variables for you.
You could start by speaking about the layout of the road and getting a 'yes' answer for the fact you were waiting with traffic banked up at an intersection.
Question rhetorically that cars may cross the white line within 100m of an approaching intersection, with a true/false proposition.
Then something that proves waiting traffic could only lead to the direction of travel ie. turning left or traveling straight.

Then it'd be a matter of saying something like 'so from your answers it is true a vehicle may cross a continuous white line given this situation, and you've confirmed my car has met the criteria within sub-regulation 3 of blah blah.'

/not an actual lawyer

Spot on. The ideal is to pose leading questions that can only be answered with a yes or no. Anything else leads you off the path you want to follow.

If they answer with something else, bring them back to the simplest version - "So, is that a yes, or a no?" Re-ask the question if you have to.

[Ash-u-lee]

Also represented myself in a no seatbelt case.
Officer got the colour of my clothes wrong and even though that wasnt related to the no seatbelt, it reduced his credibilty.
I didnt have any witnesses, it was my word against his. They will cross reference you and try to take away your credibility.

In my case as part of my defence,i mentioned that i noticed an unmarked police car heading towards me in the opposite direction. They then asked me to recount where all the hidden lights were on the police car. Although not related, it could have taken away my credibility and made them doubt that i actually recounted the events.

Very nerve racking. But so rewarding when/if you triumph.

[Baron]

I'd say you have a fairly open and shut case, provided you know for sure that you were within 100m from the turning lane. If in doubt go back to the intersection and try to measure it in person, note any distinguishing landmarks you were near, even if you can just say you were within X cars or whatever of the turning lane. The officer probably isn't going to need to have measured it, in the same way they can legally 'estimate' how fast you were going. Though I'd suggest that distances are an entirely different matter from speed as far as an officer's exposure to any kind of experience in telling distance.

If it gets to court, it might be useful to ask the following questions or mention these points:

(1) ask the officer details about their own location relative to the lights/turning lane;
(2) ask the officer if they actually saw you at the time you crossed the line;
(3) note that the SUV was in front of you which would have obstructed their view of when you crossed the line;
(4) tell them where you were going, if the freeway is the obvious way to get there or it is a regular route for you.

[fourseven]

Thanks mate.

Point number 2 is actually something I hadn't thought about. If they didn't see me cross, they can't say for certain if I was 100m away. Winner.

[pgc]

Thanks mate.

Point number 2 is actually something I hadn't thought about. If they didn't see me cross, they can't say for certain if I was 100m away. Winner.

Be careful with how you ask that one. Don't make it your first question. Lead up to it with other questions such as:

- What distance do you estimate I was away from you?
- What distance do you estimate the SUV was away from you?
- Was the SUV in front of me?

Any other questions could then be used to establish that there was an obstruction to their view, again with yes/no answers.

Then go in with the big guns:

"So, if the SUV was in front of me and you were XXX away, you didn't actually see me cross the line, did you?"

Again, a yes/no question. Pretty hard to say yes to, when they didn't see it.

[2jzlux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE

[TurboHead]

That's fucked.

The lawyer has told me that it won't be easy, but I can keep asking for adjournments until I get exactly what I want to my satisfaction

Yeah, I went through 4 adjournments before I won my case..... Pain in the arse getting time off work and I even work next to the court my case was heard at.

[winstor]

As other have said, you want to use closed questions. Sure you will be fine.

[MadDocker]

Plead the fif! 1, 2, 3, 4, fif!

[lathiat]

My only other thought is, in theory it should/probably is/be irrelevant but.. if this offence holding wouldn't' cause you to lose your license, might be able to work that in somewhere.
i.e. this isn't just a grab to save your license


of course it might be, if so, nvm. :P

[LostInTheWoods]

I self represented and had the charges dropped for a speeding fine and incorrect address on my drivers license.

Every time the officer answered a question relating to the charge with absolute certainty, I raised a simple irrelevant question such as what the traffic was like, weather, light etc, what lane they were in, even what colour car he was in. All of a sudden they are certain about the details they have written down (rego, car colour, make etc) but remember nothing of the day at all. Raise doubts and ask how many people she pulls over a week, how does she remember this specific incident so well. Any doubt you can draw out, the better you will be. I also didn't choose to go to court until the very last pay or elect letter came in and I had to elect to go to court, before you know it the court date will be 12+ months down the track and the officer will remember nothing of the incident.

Also take an aerial photo of the intersection. Detail how and when you changed lanes (as above use landmarks as references) then get them to specifically detail where they saw you cross the line. Chances are they won't be sure, and won't be able to reference anything. I did this, got the officer to commit to where and when I was speeding and accelerating, and then simply showed it is impossible for a 100hp car to accelerate in that given distance. That left them not looking too crash hot.

Also raise the question that when you questioned the officer at the scene about the specifics of the particular section of the act that you broke, that they were unable to explain it clearly, that will show a lack of knowledge of the 100m part of the act.

In my case, in shear frustration, the prosecutor resulted to calling me a liar and the judge threw it out there and then as it was evident there was no case to answer for.

The day before the case, the prosecutor called me and asked what my defence will be, fishing so he can prepare. I jsut told him I'm not guilty, and conveniently he dropped the license charge so it looked like I wasn't being bullied by the prick.

On a final note, if things aren't going well, just attack the 129 (2) (e), I was avoiding an obstruction. That is pretty clear. The cars were stopped, and not moving, thus obstructing your access to the turning lane. Pretty hard for them to challenge that, as the section is pretty cut and dry. IT gives no specifics as to the meaning of obstruction, simply something that does not allow you to progress forwards.

[volt_bite]

Wow, I had the same thing happen to me just a few weeks ago:

Intersection of Malaga and Reid, I was on Reid going South-East turning left on to Malaga. The traffic was jammed so I proceeded to turn into the emergency lane only ~10-20m from the slip lane at a slow pace (its high traffic after all). I was driving slow, a car who was going straight indicated and wanted to turn into the slip lane too so I slowed down and stopped to let him turn in. Cop was hiding at the intersection and jumped out in front of my car to stop me.

I was driving a Evo 9 (A friend of mines car which I was returning that morning) and was pulled over immediately with allegedly three traffic offences.

Allegedly:
Broke the white line
Could have hit a cyclists (no cyclists around at all)
Could have caused a crash (with the other driver pulling into the slip lane)

I had this blank face of disbelief and he kept going "Do you understand the offence ? Etc" - and I kept thinking to myself its utter bullshit!

I got the fine the week after and it came to $100. I really couldn't be bothered doing more research so I just paid the fine.

[protecon]

I was done a couple of years ago (2009) on Reid for exactly the same thing.
Back before they did the fly-overs at Alexander Drive, the traffic would back up a good 400-500m and heaps of people used to scoot down the emergency lane that merged into the turn lane left onto Alexander.
Think it was a $100 fine and after just checking my license online, it's no longer listed on there.

[volt_bite]

Fuck I wish I knew my road rules better.

Next time I get pulled over I'll out the old reading glasses and read the Act to the Police officer. Note I don't have reading glasses but I should buy some for dramatic effect.

[fourseven]

On a final note, if things aren't going well, just attack the 129 (2) (e), I was avoiding an obstruction. That is pretty clear. The cars were stopped, and not moving, thus obstructing your access to the turning lane. Pretty hard for them to challenge that, as the section is pretty cut and dry. IT gives no specifics as to the meaning of obstruction, simply something that does not allow you to progress forwards.

Unfortunately it does.


obstruction includes a traffic hazard, but does not include a vehicle only because the vehicle is stopped in traffic or is travelling more slowly than other vehicles;

Which is funny because years ago I got pulled over for crossing a white line that splits dual lanes at a traffic light and argued that I was allowed to do so if there was an obstruction (traffic was jammed turning left) and they let me go.

[LostInTheWoods]

Dammit, didn't read that too well!