Winning a Speeding Ticket Case on a Technicality – Part Three.

Written by Gregory Monte.

To Fight or not to Fight?

Last week I wrote two blog posts about the importance of finding a technicality in the motor vehicle law if you want to beat a speeding ticket in court.

Looking for a Creative Way to Fight a Speeding Ticket?  This One “Takes the Cake.”

Another Creative Way to Fight a Speeding Ticket – Challenge the Odometer.

The defendants in these two cases were not, ultimately, successful, but I wrote about them anyway to illustrate the importance of looking for technicalities.  I also applauded their refusal to take the easy way out (most citizens just pay their tickets like it is their civic duty).  I did not create Stop-Sign-Ticket.Com and initiate this blog to speak to these kinds of people.  My work is addressed to those of us who see the arbitrary nature of traffic tickets, and are pissed off enough when they get one to want to fight back.

My Son Wins on a Technicality

My son is a perfect example.  He was pissed off enough to want to fight, and he used my Pennsylvania Stop Sign Ticket Defense strategy to beat his stop sign ticket.  My strategy is full of potential technicalities.  He used one of the clearest of these – the technicality requiring all traffic signs be authorized by official ordinance.  Because his sign was never authorized, it was not enforceable.  You can read about this in my 23-page eBook How My Son Beat His Unfair Stop Sign Ticket in Pennsylvania.

Winning on a Technicality is the Only Way to Go.

Here is what I concluded in those posts published earlier this week:

Defendants only win if they can find a technicality in the law that a judge has no choice but to accept.  In other words, if you think that your personal testimony will be worth anything at all to “his honor,” you are deluding yourself.  In actuality, it is not worth s**t. If a police officer contradicts what you are saying, you are f**ked.

Racing on Highways?

Which brings me to the newest technicality case:

Commonwealth v. Dashiell, 45 Pa. D. & C. 3d 301 – Pa: Court of Common Pleas 1986

As you will see, this was not actually a speed case, although the individual did violate Title 75, Chapter F – Speed Restrictions.  The specific violation was Section 3367 – Racing on Highways.

“The trooper then observed both drivers “put it to the floor.” The trooper went up the ramp and headed south behind the two vehicles which were accelerating away from him as his speed reached 85 miles per hour. The two vehicles remained side-by-side for approximately a mile and a half past one exit until one of them pulled in back of the other vehicle as they approached the next exit.”

This was obviously a violation of the racing statute, and the judge had the following to say about the incident:

“Having just observed the classic drag race, which would be recognizable as such by a visitor from Mars, the fun and games commence on the issue of whether one of the operators, David Albert Dashiell, was properly convicted for the offense he obviously committed.”

A little bit of judicial humor, don’t you think?

Finding a Technicality and Giving it a Shot

Did this defendant just accept his fate and pay his ticket?  No, he found a possible technicality, and he made the effort to give it a try in court.

The technicality was found in Title 75, Section 3366:

“In every charge of violation of a speed provision in this subchapter, except for a violation of section 3361 (relating to driving vehicle at safe speed), the citation or complaint shall specify the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven and the applicable speed limit.”

It turns out that the police officer never included the speed at which the defendant was driving.  Based on this seeming technicality, the defendant claimed that he should be found not guilty.

Sorry to disappoint, but the judge didn’t buy this argument, and the defendant was, indeed, found guilty.  The opinion of the court was that speed is not an essential element of racing.  It is the race, itself, which is a violation of the statute.  The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania backed up this interpretation in a later case.

Please don’t understand me.  I am not claiming that finding a technicality is the be-all-and-end-all of beating a ticket.  What I am saying is that you shouldn’t just act like a domesticated sheep when you are faced with an alleged violation. 

My goal is to get as much information out to the public as possible, so that like-minded people will at least have a chance to win in court.  I was able to do this for my son, and I will continue to publish helpful tactics so that others can win their cases also.

So, stay tuned, as I have just gotten started.  And in the meantime, check out my free resources which will help you determine if you have a case to win your stop sign ticket charge.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s