Should I go to court - is it worth it?

I received a ticket about one week ago in Genoa City, WI. I am 16 years old, and still under my 9 months "probationary license" in which I can only have one friend in the car (But unlimited family members). I was driving a blue BMW convertible with the top-down, and I had 4 friends in the car (Bad idea...) One of them did not have a seatbelt on because there are only 4 seats in the car. I was coming out of a subdivision (With many trees that somewhat block the view), from a full stop, when I pulled out and went to the left. A cop was just coming up a hill and it looked like she was speeding for a 30 zone. She came pretty close to my car, but she wouldn't've hit it. Genoa City cops are notorious for pulling everyone they can over (Because it is a very small city and they have 5 cop cars), so I'm always very careful when driving through Genoa City.

Anyway, she called in the Chief of the police department and he brought me down to the station and wrote me a citation for "Failure to stop at posted stop sign". 346.46(1) [State Statute No.] and 265-1 [City Ordinance No.]

The fine is $78.80, which is a lot for me right now. I can go to court, but I know the cop let me off easy with that citation. What I'm asking is, should I go to court to try to get my 3 points off my license back and possibly reduce the fine?

Is it possible that the court could charge me with other things, such as having too many friends in the car, one without a seatbelt? Or can they only charge me with the ticket - Failure to stop at posted stop sign?

I do have evidence that shows it was near impossible for the cop to see if I was stopped or not at the stop sign, since where I was stopped is at the top of a hill. At the bottom of the hill, there is a sharp curve. At the posted speed limit, the cop could've never seen if I were fully stopped or not from where she was coming. I've done all the math and such.

The bottom line - If I go to court to dispute the citation, can they charge me with other things? My Dad really wants me to go to court.

Thanks!!!

I think you are missing the point of what the cop was, perhaps, trying to do for you. You admit, you got off easy. Yet, you want to go to court and look a gift horse in the mouth?

Judging from what she COULD have charged you with, it seems as though she picked the "least" offense she could come up with. You ask if the court can charge you with the other things you were found guilty of--the answer to that is no. The COURT wasn't there to see your admitted transgression. While I don't think the cop would bring up your OTHER transgressions, since the obvious question is--why didn't she ticket you for THOSE, too. However, my feeling is--go to court and suggest she is lying ( i.e. try to prove she couldnt see you and therefore, wouldn't know you hadn't stopped all the way) would be detrimental to you in the future, especially if the cops are as prominent as you say they are.

What I am saying is---if you REALIZE you "got off easy"---do NOT go to court and play the ungrateful fool. She WILL remember you and the NEXT time you get stopped ( and there WILL be a next time) be aware, she will throw the BOOK at you.

I would encourage you to pay more attention to the rules of the road. I have children your age who stood by their fathers grave last month as a result of someone who felt they were above the law when they got behind the wheel of a car. God forbid you do that to a friend, when you admit you know better.

Good luck.

Thanks...but I won't be driving through there anymore (I had no reason to go there again, it was just to drop my friend off at her friend's house). I was just wondering if I should go to court to dispute the ticket to potentially reduce my fine or potentially get some points off my license. If I rarely drive through that town anymore and I always follow the rules (Which I do, because like I said, they'll get you for anything!), I don't really see a problem with trying to dispute the ticket.

So to reinforce this - they CANNOT charge me with anything else? All I am going to court to settle is the ticket I got? Nothing else can be brought upon myself?

As I said, the cop can't say, "Well, Judge, by the way, he DID have other people in the car, yada yada." The obvious question the judge would have for the cop is "Well, why didn't you TICKET Him for THAT, too?" So, I cannot imagine a cop mentioning it in court. Now, that being said, he MAY say he WARNED YOU about the other things and he MAY bring it up in court to weight his position that the ticket you got was fair and appropriate since he COULD have given you more but was being lenient. But, he cannot ADD to the charges against you and have the fine, etc. go UP. While I realize that the money is a lot to you, it isn't a lot in the minds of everyone else.

That being said, you obviously want to go to court and dispute the ticket. I say go. I don't know what you have to lose. Do whatever you think is best.

Read your ticket carefully. That is why you'll appear in court. If you didn't receive additional citations for other violations (seatbelt, etc.) that is the only charge you'll be answering. Before you decide anything, I'd suggest you find out whether an additional report was filed and obtain a copy of that as well. Whether or not you choose to dispute is your own choice; at least you'll be better informed first. (Just a thought.)

Good luck.

As a matter of LAW, a police officer is not allowed to create additional "reports" generated from a car stop without notifying the defendant of it at the scene. This is, in part, because if the defendant doesn't know what the charges are against him, he cannot prepare an adequate defense before court.

There simply IS no such animal as another "report", mainly, because "reports" are not generated from traffic stops such as the one he described. TICKETS are. There is no way another ticket could be "issued", nor is it acceptable to ADD to a ticket ( this is WHY there are duplicate and/or triplicate copies ). For a defendant to drive away, and for the officer to think to himself, "Wow, I forgot--I think he forgot to use his turn signal" , and proceeded to write ANOTHER ticket? Doesn't happen.

I would disagree with your suggestion to the contrary (Note: this is not a personal attack, merely a DISAGREEMENT based on a question of what is, as a matter of law, very elementary.)

Thank you very much for your advice!

Additional reports, of course, would include the dispatch log, which is considered public record and is available to either an attorney or an individual representing him/herself. It contains the date, time, location and reason for the officer's involvement and other details as well.

Once again for the record, a ticket contains all charges and/or violations. Several citations may be issued on one single occasion: speeding, failure to stop and not using seatbelts, for examples, depending on both the police officer involved, the particular state and/or county and the nature/amount of violations. And as any police officer will attest: depending on the severity of the offense, they may choose not appear in court at the hearing.

This is fact and directed to the person answering the question, therefore no disclaimers are necessary. At no time, in any conceivable way did I remotely suggest anything faintly resembling the ludicrous* scenarios described above. They are both overly exaggerated* and of course, unconstitutional. *My opinions.

Once again, good luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJury'sStillOut I'd suggest you find out whether an additional report was filed and obtain a copy of that as well. Whether or not you choose to dispute is your own choice; at least you'll be better informed first..

.

Actually, you did not tell him to get a copy of the dispatch log which every call AUTOMATICALLY generates. You told him to "find out IF additional reports were filed"---this, clearly, excludes the obvious dispatch log, since, even you admit, they are automatically generated, so their existence is not an "if" proposition at all. You told him to see IF ( possibly, possibly not) "additional reports were filed."

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJury'sStillOut Additional reports, of course, would include the dispatch log, which is considered public record and is available to either an attorney or an individual representing him/herself. It contains the date, time, location and reason for the officer's involvement and other details as well..

.

First of all, "public records" are not just available to attorneys and people representing themselves in court. Public records are available to anyone who takes the time to seek them. However, dispatch logs are NOT automatically part of the public record. Secondly, dispatch LOGS are just that--LOGS. AUDIO LOGS. NOT reports. Thirdly, THE PUBLIC IS ONLY ENTITLED TO HAVE ACCESS TO RECORDS THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO KEEP (i.e. birth, death, marriage, divorce, tax, etc). Fourthly, many states have no requirement that dispatch logs be kept, and if they are kept, they are kept because of evidentiary issues. The sheriff or police chief has the ability to deny anyone without a subpoena these records since the purpose of even KEEPING them is evidentiary (i.e. to be used as evidence involving criminal or civil liability). And, in some municipalities, the dispatch logs are actually PROTECTED to keep unscrupulous businesses and individuals from obtaining the information there that could be used to compromise someone's privacy.

For example, when my husband was killed recently at the hand of a careless driver, details about the critical nature of his injury were transmitted across dispatch airwaves in order to get the LifeVac there as quickly as possible. To suggest that those logs are public record means that his personal medical information is public record (since it was transmitted over the air waves via dispatch). This is clearly unconstitutional. Do you see how your suggestion to the contrary, while absolutely your *opinion*, is clearly wrong? As his widow, I am free to subpoena those dispatch logs in my wrongful death suit--but to walk in and expect them to be turned over to even me? Isn't going to happen. Not without a subpoena establishing necessity.

Nice try, but no cigar. (Nevermind the logistics of the police department actually sparing the personnel to sift through hours of audio tapes to find the one the poster is asking for, merely to get out of an $85 ticket ). Uh. Right.

*EDUCATIONAL EXTRA* Obviously a police INCIDENT REPORT wherein an officer responds to someone's home, business, or vehicle pursuant to a call being placed is different. THOSE are public record since the police are *required* to maintain those REPORTS.

You cite "OTHER INFORMATION AS WELL" (in addition to the date, time, location, etc) is in the dispatch log.

What other information would the dispatch log include? Please, instruct us.




First of all, WHO may choose not to appear? The police officer doesn't have to appear or the defendant doesn't have to appear? My dear, if the defendant does NOT appear in court, a BENCH WARRANT will be issued for his arrest forthwith, unless he paid the ticket before hand (an option your posting failed to mention entirely).

Also, the "severity" of the offense is entirely irrelevant while considering whether or not a defendant must appear. While different violations carry different monetary and "point" related fines, they ALL allow the defendant to PAY the ticket BEFORE HAND to avoid going to court. Therefore, any and all offenses for which a citation can be given MAY be paid BEFORE COURT---regardless of the "severity" of the offense. "SERIOUS" offenses that ORDER someone to appear would have resulted in the person's being arrested on the spot. BOTTOM LINE: ANY traffic infraction for which tickets are written offer the defendant the ability to pay it BEFORE court OR APPEAR. Period. If the ticket is NOT PAID before court, the defendant cannot merely "choose" not to appear. Unless, of course, he is interested in a signed copy of a BENCH warrant with HIS name on it. The reason for the ticket (i.e. "severity of the offense") is immaterial. Quite frankly, I am astounded--not that you would post incorrect information, but that you would state "police officers attest" to said information being true.

Now that we have cleared up THAT little blurble (blurble is a highly specialized legal term--very much like WHOMPS) of misinformation, it seems we are back to the original question.What relevant "additional reports" (not audio logs) that are actually PUBLIC RECORD should the poster request, and what information DO they contain that the ticket already does not?


Please, advise.

Are you guys suggesting that I obtain more reports so I know if other things were documented about me besides my citation?