Last I remember I live in a "Innocent till Proven Guilty" society, but...

[Blackjack 222]

The hostility with any crime is "Guilty until proven innocent". If someone accuses you of rape you don't get treated innocent. They behave as if you are guilty until proven otherwise. It works but we cold be HONEST about how it works.

 

[Kalahee]

The hostility with any crime is "Guilty until proven innocent". If someone accuses you of rape you don't get treated innocent. They behave as if you are guilty until proven otherwise. It works but we cold be HONEST about how it works.

Actually, community will threat you as such and federal will only think about it and mumble in their beard. But in rape/pedo case, community won't stop to threat you like it even if court decided you're not.

Actually, the "Innocent till proven Guilty" is that if you succeed to cast doubt in one of the jury, you're safe as long he do openly says it to it's collegue (fat chance for rape/pedo). As opposed to "Guilty till proven Innocent" would require at least 50%+1 of the Jury to beleive your story.

But for ticket given by the street police, it doesn't work like that. You're guilty, go appeal to the judge himself you're not. Of course there is situations you can succeed to prove it, but they're less reliable than to prove you're guilty. I do understand they can't stop at each person and call the CSI to find the proof needed to slap your crime to your face.

As for car and who's driving it, harder to prove you weren't the one driving with camera in your face.. or the one who did... you're still the one who will have to slap the ticket in the culprit's face for him to pay it. Althought in your right, still douchebag to call the cops on him for speeding in your car.

well OP you're possibly one of hte most open people I've ever met. XD

I have three holes and one is used more than the others althought may be mistaken for one the other when I talk. I try not to, but it ain't as entertaining, sometimes need an audience that can forgive the bad breath and just enjoy ranting as much as I do althought I can be like some cheated wife with a rolling pin. Oh hell if you complain about how I say thinks and laugh out loud at Yathzee's Zero Punctuation. I'm not doing it without punctuation, I've slapped to many faces of friends to convince them quitting sending me SMS on MSN with a full keyboard in front of them. Ranting is therapeuthic, just like popping bubble-wrap, just try to be consistant. [Yathzee vs AVGN anyone?]

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Most will try to lie to get out of a ticket to the officer when being given it; it's to be expected. But I doubt you'd find many people willing to go to take their city council to court to appeal the ticket, go under oath and then lie. Especially when it'd be so easy to find out if you are lying.

And I don't know what you class as a "dealings with the police". I once parked illegally, and I paid the ticket. So I doubt that counts. But I do have quite a bit of knowledge of the law and I do know that the only defence that doesn't "hold water" in court for this kind of offence is "I didn't know it was illegal" or something.

What you doubt or not is irrelevant. It comes down to her word against the coppers. She can't prove she didn't have a phone. Maybe she just doesn't have one registered to her name. Maybe she was borrowing someone elses. If she has to prove she wasn't on the phone she's screwed, she can't do that. "I don't own a phone" will not hold water if the burden of proof is on her.
Now if the cop has to prove she was on the phone then she should be ok, but if that's the case why give the ticket out now before they've done so? If it's just going to be proved wrong down the line why waste all that time? I'm guessing this is actually what's going to happen and the OP was exaggerating with the "having to prove your innocence" thing (Canadian law is not British law)but it's still branding someone guilty unless they take steps to rectify it. In essence you are being given a fine without a proper investigation and then you have to spend time calling the police on their bullshit.

EDIT: Guess imperialreign has given a good example of what I mean. Cop says you did it, you damn well did it unless you can prove you didn't. 2 months down the line they can't search your car to prove you didn't have a phone in it that day.

 

[Saltyk]

The thing is, if a police officer pulled your friend over, they'd get the ticket and there would never be an issue. But the camera automatically sends you the ticket. Then, you have to take the time, probably missing work considering the hours the courts have, to prove that you weren't driving. Also, a police officer can choose to give you a warning. It's up to his discretion whether you get a ticket or a warning.

I've even heard some people advocate cameras to give you speeding tickets on the interstate. I have huge problems with the idea that a soulless machine will be giving me a fine.

Of course there are whole other issues that we can take with the "guilty until proven innocent" concept that the OP brought up. Even I am guilty of thinking that any person that is in court is almost certainly guilty of the crime they are being charged with. It seems less and less like we are innocent in court. More often you have to prove that you are innocent. The burden of proof should be on the prosecution not the defendant.

This probably won't surprise you, but in the UK the static speed cameras take a picture of the front of the car as well so if you weren't driving you will have backup. This is precisely because a lot of people were saying "weren't me drivin guv, prove otherwise" and getting tickets thrown out.

The thing is, I don't think the ticket giving process should be automated. Especially, when you can lose your license over such offenses. Computers are not known to be forgiving. And like I said earlier, even if the camera clearly shows someone else driving, you would still need to take your own time to prove that it wasn't you. Spending hours during work hours just to walk in and say, "Not me, see?". If you didn't go to court, they would just treat you as guilty.

Also, in my home state, the speed limit is 55 mph (not sure what that is in kilometers) on the interstate in the city, but if you're going under 70 mph, you are obstructing traffic. I suddenly imagine half the city losing their licenses due to automated speed cameras.

And what would happen if you went the speed limit?​

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes you have the official law, and the reality. And what's the point of an unenforced speed limit? My best guess is that they want to have really high tickets when they do issue them.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

The thing is, I don't think the ticket giving process should be automated. Especially, when you can lose your license over such offenses. Computers are not known to be forgiving. And like I said earlier, even if the camera clearly shows someone else driving, you would still need to take your own time to prove that it wasn't you. Spending hours during work hours just to walk in and say, "Not me, see?". If you didn't go to court, they would just treat you as guilty.

Also, in my home state, the speed limit is 55 mph (not sure what that is in kilometers) on the interstate in the city, but if you're going under 70 mph, you are obstructing traffic. I suddenly imagine half the city losing their licenses due to automated speed cameras.

*SNIP*

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes you have the official law, and the reality. And what's the point of an unenforced speed limit? My best guess is that they want to have really high tickets when they do issue them.

Oh yeah, it's the same on British motorways, the speed limit is 70mph but they never put any cameras on them because they know that if they did nobody would ever get anywhere. The slow lane is for people driving at the speed limit, the middle lane is for up to 80 and the fast lane is for anything over that.

Having to prove it wasn't you driving is abit of a pig, although in theory they should be able to tell anyway since your car should be registered to you and then they should be able to check with the DVLA against your picture. Lazy bastards. I'm sure I remember some guy on here saying he'd been charged with driving without insurance in a car that he'd never owned while he was out of the country and banned from driving in a certain state and fined in absentia.

 

[ace_of_something]

Oddly it ain't the same on the street, polices are like Judge Dread. They give you a ticket without actually figuring if you are guilty and tells you you have 30 days to prove your innocence.

Speaking as a police officer (detective now.)

Receiving a ticket is NOT A GUILTY PLEA if you wish to fight the ticket, a court date is given to you on the papers. To be perfectly honest, unless your driving caused an accident, most of the time they are thrown out if show up to court because the issuing officers rarely show up to present evidence because it's not worth their time.

Is there a chance that whoever got the cellphone ticket is just a terrible driver?

 

[ace_of_something]

The police can and will lie and manipulate anyone for any reason for their own gain or for the gain of those they work for.
Fuck the police.

*Plays 'Cop Killer' on High and drowns out the sirens*

Care to explain what the officer explains by giving out tickets besides more paperwork? I'd really like to hear it.

 

[Saltyk]

The thing is, I don't think the ticket giving process should be automated. Especially, when you can lose your license over such offenses. Computers are not known to be forgiving. And like I said earlier, even if the camera clearly shows someone else driving, you would still need to take your own time to prove that it wasn't you. Spending hours during work hours just to walk in and say, "Not me, see?". If you didn't go to court, they would just treat you as guilty.

Also, in my home state, the speed limit is 55 mph (not sure what that is in kilometers) on the interstate in the city, but if you're going under 70 mph, you are obstructing traffic. I suddenly imagine half the city losing their licenses due to automated speed cameras.

*SNIP*

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes you have the official law, and the reality. And what's the point of an unenforced speed limit? My best guess is that they want to have really high tickets when they do issue them.

Oh yeah, it's the same on British motorways, the speed limit is 70mph but they never put any cameras on them because they know that if they did nobody would ever get anywhere. The slow lane is for people driving at the speed limit, the middle lane is for up to 80 and the fast lane is for anything over that.

Having to prove it wasn't you driving is abit of a pig, although in theory they should be able to tell anyway since your car should be registered to you and then they should be able to check with the DVLA against your picture. Lazy bastards. I'm sure I remember some guy on here saying he'd been charged with driving without insurance in a car that he'd never owned while he was out of the country and banned from driving in a certain state and fined in absentia.

I once got a ticket for no insurance, when I had the wrong card on me. I had just switched cars, and didn't have the new insurance card on me. However, I still had insurance under the same name and policy with the same company. Literally, the only difference between the cards was the car model. The officer could have easily looked it up. I think he was just mad because I wasn't drunk and he had thought I was (it was about 2 AM and I had been up since 4 or 5 on only 4 hours of sleep). Also, got a ticket for my tag light being out at the same time. Both were dismissed in court and it only took me about 2 minutes to do so, but I still had to go to court.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I once got a ticket for no insurance, when I had the wrong card on me. I had just switched cars, and didn't have the new insurance card on me. However, I still had insurance under the same name and policy with the same company. Literally, the only difference between the cards was the car model. The officer could have easily looked it up. I think he was just mad because I wasn't drunk and he had thought I was (it was about 2 AM and I had been up since 4 or 5 on only 4 hours of sleep). Also, got a ticket for my tag light being out at the same time. Both were dismissed in court and it only took me about 2 minutes to do so, but I still had to go to court.

Things work slightly differently over here. With insurance if there isn't a national database so if you don't have your certificate they give you a 'producer' which means you have 7 days to take your certificate to a police station. Tail light or other minor roadworthiness infractions and they give you a pink slip and you have to go and get the work done at a garage within x amount of time and they'll sign it to say that it's been sorted but most garages charge for signing the slip, around £30, so it's still something you want to avoid.

 

[Red Right Hand]

Under the basic principles of English law, every man is innocent until speculated guilty!

Cookie for the reference.

 

[Shivarage]

sdrawkcab si gnihtyrevE

Hopefully you're not Zatanna

?

In DCUO, she casts spells forward. I bugged that immediately. Then forgave her because of the fishnets.

I am not whom you think I be...

 

[BRex21]

I had a similar situation, and it really is a guilty until proven innocent scenario. I was pulled over because he suspected I was under the influence of alcohol, based on time of night and location, no other factors. and when i passed a Breathalyzer he ticketed me for having my cell phone out(not using my cell phone but having it visible). i went to court and brought along several cell phones and told him that he should be able to identify the one i was using, he couldn't and they threw out the ticket.
Winnipeg has gotten pretty notorious for its tickets though, with its inability to follows the rules with photo-radar, and its ticket turf wars with some of the neighboring municipalities, so i know these things can get kinda crazy. Most situations though, since they wont pay the officers overtime to go to court, you kinda win by default if you want to ask any questions.

 

[Kalahee]

OP, you know I assumed you were a teen until I read your profile...

Adults have right to rant and use poop once in a while.

When you are a ticket, that's not a guilty verdict, that's an accusation of a crime.

Having gone to some court before, I get a convocation, not the verdict with nice price and how to pay it or how much time I have to go in appeal. (Last time I checked you go in appeal after, when you disagree with the verdict.)

You are only found guilty if you fail to provide a defense (the officer has stated his case on the ticket, if you don't respond to say "not guilty" and ask for a day in court that's a presumption you agree with him).

I still beleive the police officer should consider investigating a bit more before giving them out. Speeding may be pretty clear with their radar, drunk may not be able to avoid getting high score on a balloon, still for the current case I explained up there, the driver was scratching her ear and the officer didn't take a moment to tell if there was a cellphone.

Also you are wrong that under the law you are innnocent until proven guilty. Under Canadian law (and even more so under Quebec Code Law) there are times were guilt may be presumed. Stop watching US court TV to figure out how our law works. (Actually I think there are presumptive laws down there too...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_Canada - Read.

Quebec is a province of Canada and even more social and civil right activist than Canada itself. Yet, it follows the canadian juridistic system. As I can see you're canadian, I'll presume you just hate Quebec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence - Enjoy.

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.

Also I don't watch TV that much and I prefer Stargates. I don't need television to educate myself.

 

[xdom125x]

You are innocent until proven guilty. If you pay the ticket you admit guilt. Your option is to go to court and try to prove your innocence (which will almost certainly incur court costs equal to the ticket). Its a catch 22, personally I think if you are found innocent the plaintiff should have to pay court costs, but thats not the way it is.

You are right. The way you suggested makes more sense. But when has logic ever been related to law?

 

[xdom125x]

The hostility with any crime is "Guilty until proven innocent". If someone accuses you of rape you don't get treated innocent. They behave as if you are guilty until proven otherwise. It works but we cold be HONEST about how it works.

Bingo.

For instance. If you are arrested for almost anything that requires you to be jailed you WILL sit in jail until your trial or hearing unless you can afford bail.

Another misrepresentation of our Justice system is that it is all about seeking out the truth. That the "truth will set you free."

Lawyers dont care about the truth. Only winning. Truth is irrelevant. Deception and technicalities> Truth in our Justice system.

This
The truth doesn't matter. Only what you can prove matters.

 

[thethain]

You are innocent until proven guilty. If you pay the ticket you admit guilt. Your option is to go to court and try to prove your innocence (which will almost certainly incur court costs equal to the ticket). Its a catch 22, personally I think if you are found innocent the plaintiff should have to pay court costs, but thats not the way it is.

Actually, what you have in hand is your sentence, thereso considered guilty. Yes, you are right, you admit your guilt if you pay, or you have 30 days to appeal to your case. Doesn't change that you have been judged guilty in the first place. But, I'm more concerned on how to prove your innocence without an opposing team bringing in the proof of your guilt.

I can't comment on your local laws. But as I was given a ticket rather recently (6 months ago) it stated very clearly on the ticket. If you choose to pay this ticket you admit guilt, if you do not agree show up in court on this day. That is more accurately a court summons.

"In order to contest a ticket, you must appear on first appearance court date and plead not guilty and a trail will follow"

Pleading not guilty is not appealing a case, it is starting one. The system is flawed and a mockery of any sense of justice because going to court costs the same as paying the ticket. But technically you are innocent, unless you accept your guilt, even if you don't pay and don't show up technically you aren't guilty (of speeding) you are guilty of failure to appear and will have a bench warrant though..

http://traffic.alacourt.gov/trafficfines.aspx?county=Calhoun

Notice a key word. "Charged" thats the same as accused. Notice also it says that "My signature will be the same a court verdict". Any defendant in a court is charged with a crime.

Two things I believe would render frivolous tickets non-existent:
1. Successful Defense incurs no court cost, possibly even a small payment to defender for wasted time.
2. Any generated income from tickets go to a non-connected entity. IE if the City police give you a ticket, any fine you pay goes to the transportation department instead of the City that issued it.