Should You Subpoena Your Traffic Ticket to be Contested by the Traffic Officer?

It finally happened. You were a little late to a conference in Bellevue, traffic was large, and you didn't think anybody would notice. So you cranked up the speedometer a small bit and began making your way to that meeting. Until you saw the flashing lights in your rear view mirror. Now you have got a cheap NY traffic lawyer. You don't want to spend it if you do not have to, and you heard the best way to defeat a speeding ticket is to contest it. Which means you did. But you have to decide whether or not to subpoena the officer, and you're not sure what to do.

Contesting a speeding ticket isn't a struggle. Beating a speeding ticket sometimes is, but it is a possibility if you've the right information. And subpoenaing the officer is a major decision in a traffic ticket case. In several area, like Seattle in the example above, in case you decide maybe not to subpoena the officer, the report is usually entered into evidence by the prosecution. This implies the court will simply read the officers report (which can be signed under oath) and make a decision based on any evidence and that you present to the court.

But when should you subpoena the officer and when should not you? Let us discuss when you should not subpoena the officer first. If you examine your ticket, or the officer's ticket, which will have his published report on it (you should always ask for these details - the prosecutor has an obligation to give it to you if you ask) and you can clearly see that something is wrong that will enable you to beat the traffic ticket, do not subpoena the officer so they really have an opportunity to correct it.

For example, in my Bellevue traffic ticket example above. Let us say the police officer, for whatever purpose, writes down the road in his report. Let's say you were crossing the I-90 bridge from Seattle to Bellevue and he thought you were on 520, so he wrote that down. You would not want to subpoena the officer to come in and appropriate that declaration on his report. You'd just want to point out to the judge that contrary to the officer's record you were on the I-90 bridge and could not happen to be on 520 as suggested (in a way this is similar to an alibi). They could come and testify to that at the same time if you have a friend that was with you. In that case planning against the ticket and perhaps not the officer is better because the testimony (the speeding ticket) conflicts with the particular facts. Because the ticket suggests the prosecutor wouldn't be able to prove by a variety of the evidence that you're speeding on 520.

You should subpoena the officer, nevertheless, when you need to explain most of the issues he forgot to mention on his ticket. For instance, let us say you were driving in really heavy traffic, you know that from where the officer came from that he would have likely had to shoot his laser or radar through several vehicles, and that there were other probable interfering factors present that day. You would want to call the officer to the stand to question him about this, get him to point out that it's possible that he shot another car and not yours, and that maybe you were not speeding. However, remember not to decide to try to ruin his credibility by calling him a liar - that technique only won't work, should you call the officer to the stand.

More details can be found click here.

If you get a cheap NY traffic lawyer and face the choice of whether to subpoena the authorities officer or not, simply take a moment to think of why you'd or would not want him or her there, and continue from there. And if you want a little advice before-hand, it always helps to contact the pros - traffic lawyers - who is able to help point you in the right direction.