Time to plan my defense of visor ticket on Thurs.

[dantama]

Now don't you all go getting this thread deleted like the last two times.

I can say this Officer has a man-belly. I've seen worse said about Nancy Palosi's looks on this site ;)





For those that didn't catch it last Aug. She was pretty butt-hurt that I pulled into this spot, rather than dig through my bag for the paperwork out in the street just to the left in the picture.




And the only violation was for having my visor in this position.





It's not like I was committing any other violations, and was cut a break and only written for the visor, the visor was the only violation there was. She said that if it's not all the way down, then it doesn't count as eye protection in her book.


I have court on Thurs. and I've procrastinated coming up with a strategy for cross examining her on the stand, and preparing a flow chart of questioning questions. I usually come up with a snare or two to get them to answer one way in a line of questioning that seems to back up their position, and then later getting them to answer the opposite when the opposite seems to back their position. Then show that they aren't reliable because they've answered two different ways on the same question.

The admins are inclined to eventually pull the plug on my cop stories because there are some cops on the board. But hey! There's bound to be a Nomad owning politician, and look what we allow to be said about them. Let's be consistent ;)

[bobhamlin]

I would ask her to open your visor to the size of the opening that she witnessed.

Ask her for the wording of the statute upon which she wrote the ticket. (I'm doubting that it says visors have to be closed. They probably deal with 'eye protection')

After she's committed, you could probably put the helmet on and show that your eyes were protected as well as any other form of approved glasses would have protected them. Offer your picture as evidence of your interpretation of the opening.

Don't argue that she was wrong. Argue that your eyes were protected.

If you normally look THROUGH your windshield -- as opposed to OVER It, sit behind your windshield with your visor open and have someone take a picture to show that your eyes have protection.

Bring up how many miles/years you have driven and that you voluntarily wear a full face helmet precisely for the protection -- as opposed to beanies.

Finally, if things aren't going your way, in your best Al Pacino impersonation, point at the judge and say, "YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!! YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!! THE WHOLE TRIAL IS OUT OF ORDER!! ("And Justice For All)

[Cajunrider]

Originally Posted by bobhamlin

I would ask her to open your visor to the size of the opening that she witnessed.

Ask her for the wording of the statute upon which she wrote the ticket. (I'm doubting that it says visors have to be closed. They probably deal with 'eye protection')

After she's committed, you could probably put the helmet on and show that your eyes were protected as well as any other form of approved glasses would have protected them. Offer your picture as evidence of your interpretation of the opening.

Don't argue that she was wrong. Argue that your eyes were protected.

If you normally look THROUGH your windshield -- as opposed to OVER It, sit behind your windshield with your visor open and have someone take a picture to show that your eyes have protection.

Bring up how many miles/years you have driven and that you voluntarily wear a full face helmet precisely for the protection -- as opposed to beanies.

Finally, if things aren't going your way, in your best Al Pacino impersonation, point at the judge and say, "YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!! YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!! THE WHOLE TRIAL IS OUT OF ORDER!! ("And Justice For All)

LMAO

[dank]

This is the Colorado regulation:

42-4-232. Minimum safety standards for motorcycles and low-power scooters.


(1) No person shall operate any motorcycle or low-power scooter on any public highway in this state unless such person and any passenger thereon is wearing goggles or eyeglasses with lenses made of safety glass or plastic; except that this subsection (1) shall not apply to a person wearing a helmet containing eye protection made of safety glass or plastic.

You had the helmet on, so it seems eye protection is the issue. Frankly, I think you have a hard row to hoe on this one. It is pretty obvious that the eye protection comes from having the visor closed, which is the intended condition of the helmet while riding. The gap in yours is easily large enough to let foreign objects in. If your glasses are safety glass or plastic, which most are anymore, you are home free by the regulation. Otherwise, I'd expect the judge to side with the officer. The regulation does not just say helmet with a visor. It frames it in terms of eye protection, which yours was not fully providing. Your personal assessment of the officers appearance has nothing to do with the validity of what she said.

Could she have made her point by warning you, probably, but that doesn't mean she was wrong in writing the ticket.

[dantama]

I've been clipping out pertinent parts of the video I took.

So in one part she says with a lot of self-righteous indignation "You can take pictures of your helmet all you want, you can take pictures of this entire area all you want"... then lectures about the law and visors.

I doubt that she'll remember her little speech, so I'll ask her something like this:

Officer Guzman, did you say that Mr. Lund could take pictures of the surrounding area during your stop?

She'll presumable say no, as how could saying yes possibly help?

I'll reiterate, during your stop, you never at anytime told Mr. Lund that he could take the pictures?

She will say no, and I'll play the clip of her saying I can do it all I want.

I've got a few more like that to use too, but that is all just to show that she is an unreliable witness, and doesn't remember the stop very well. And therefore, how can she be credited for reliably saying in what position my visor was in?

But most of my defense will along the lines of the law not spelling out in what position glasses have to be in relationship to the nose, eyes, etc. I'll try to get her to admit that glasses that are just a half inch below the eyes are legal. Then show in what position my visor would be in to be 1/2 below my eyes. It can be considerably open and still be below the eye. The law also doesn't state how close to the face the glasses have to be, and therefore no guidelines for where the visor has to be either. etc. etc.

[dantama]

Originally Posted by dank

Frankly, I think you have a hard row to hoe on this one.

Yes, I'll be happy to win, but I'm not counting on it.

I hope that I have a different judge than last time. Last time, the lady before me had a brilliant defense on a parking ticket. She had emails confirming when she was in the building, and when she was at a different location, making the time limit on the parking spot (two hours, not a pay meter) very unlikely to have been exceeded.

He still ruled for the parking officer.

Then I got my cop to admit that every time I sped up with my signal on to move to the lane to enter the freeway, she also sped up and blocked me. She claimed that she "Had" to in order to get an accurate reading on her radar.

My defense was that an officer can't "induce" a person to commit a crime, and speeding up to prevent someone from accessing the entrance ramp is inducing them to speed up. He ruled against me, but lowered the amount. I think I should have won, and I think that lady before me should have won. So I hope I don't have him again.

[schoeney]

I think she will say yes (to allowing pics)...or at least says she does not recall. I think the whole pic taking thing is easy for her to remember and she probably made a note of it because it is what made this stop unusual. It is not normal for a perp to start rattling off pics, it was pretty obvious you were not just measured in your responses but were already thinking ahead to the court case. Of course she may not realize you were taking video w/audio. I wonder if the judge will even allow it to be played?

If she is good at picking up on reading people(which most cops are) she probably made a note that this guy will fight me in court so document, document, document.

To be quite frank I would be surprised if the judge didn't just dismiss the case because it seems petty....splitting hairs over how wide the shield was open. But if somehow she is able to paint you as beligerent and uncooperative to the judge then you may get nailed on what I would think is considered a minor offense.

I would not underestimate your opponent...who knows...maybe she has been following this thread?

It will be interesting to hear the outcome.

[blowndodge]

You might want to argue "intent" of the law as it applies to motorcycle with and without windshields and if she knows the difference. Ask the officer if a 3/4 helmet with the shield down would be legal with no eyewear. According to the regs. it appears there is no difference. If she doesn't know then you should have it won.

If she answers in the affirmative then demonstrate with a 3/4 helmet one click up from fully down (from a distance across the court room like she saw you that day) and ask her if it's still legal then point out that the helmet is not legal because it's not fully shut in the full down position. Ask her how she deferentiates between the two and she should be covered in enough drool to make her look not too convincing.

you could also ask her if you had a sudden unexpected fogging of your shield and it's well known that cracking it slightly removes the fog almost instantly would that be the safe thing to do or should you let your vision be obscured by your breath for fear of a violation. As an public servant she is required to advise you on this. I'm guessin' she don't know that answer either.

Intent is going to be key here. Find out if convertable car drivers are required to wear goggles or safety glasses when operation their vehicle. Ask how your windshield protecting you differentiates from a convertables windshield protecting a non-goggle wearing driver?

If she can't.........well.......... we'll see

[dantama]

Originally Posted by schoeney

I think she will say yes (to allowing pics)...or at least says she does not recall. I think the whole pic taking thing is easy for her to remember and she probably made a note of it because it is what made this stop unusual. It is not normal for a perp to start rattling off pics, it was pretty obvious you were not just measured in your responses but were already thinking ahead to the court case. Of course she may not realize you were taking video w/audio. I wonder if the judge will even allow it to be played?

I think she'll say no.

When she said I could, it was with a lot of self-righteous indignation. Kind of like when a wife says, "Do whatever the hell you want", but doesn't really mean it. She was saying, "you can take pictures of your helmet, you can take pictures of the surrounding area,.... but the law is very clear, you must wear eye protection."

She didn't like me taking pictures, told me to put the camera down, and was very annoyed by it. I think her not wanting me to is what will stand out in her mind. I doubt that in a fit of self-righteous indignation she will remember saying anything about saying I can, because it is the opposite of what she really wanted.

Originally Posted by Blowndodge "Darksider"

You might want to argue "intent" of the law as it applies to motorcycle with and without windshields and if she knows the difference. Ask the officer if a 3/4 helmet with the shield down would be legal with no eyewear. According to the regs. it appears there is no difference. If she doesn't know then you should have it won.

If she answers in the affirmative then demonstrate with a 3/4 helmet one click up from fully down (from a distance across the court room like she saw you that day) and ask her if it's still legal then point out that the helmet is not legal because it's not fully shut in the full down position. Ask her how she differentiates between the two and she should be covered in enough drool to make her look not too convincing.

Good idea BD, I'll do a google image search for those helmets, I don't have one anymore.

[coloradontexas]

whens the court date?

[dantama]

Originally Posted by coloradontexas

whens the court date?

Thursday morning. I'm a procrastinator.

[Cajunrider]

I would not underestimate your opponent...who knows...maybe she has been following this thread?

Careful Dan, this same thought crossed my mind.

[dantama]

Originally Posted by Cajunrider

Careful Dan, this same thought crossed my mind.

Yikes!

Now you cops on the board, it's no fair to call the brotherhood over here and give them tips!!

[Jared]

Often times, here in Utah, the officers don't show for minor things like this and it just gets thrown out.

[dantama]

Originally Posted by Utah Motorcyclist

Often times, here in Utah, the officers don't show for minor things like this and it just gets thrown out.

I counted on that in Utah too, but in Denver they get some kind of negative appraisal on their record if they don't show up.

In Utah, if they are busy or don't want to, they just don't show. In Denver, they always show up. :(