Should You Subpoena the Traffic Officer to Contest Your Traffic Ticket? It finally happened. You were a little late to a meeting in Bellevue, traffic was heavy, and you didn't think anyone would notice. So you cranked up the speedometer a little bit and started making your way to that meeting. Until you saw the flashing lights in your rear view mirror. Now you've got a Seattle speeding ticket. You don't want to pay it if you don't have to, and you heard that the best way to beat a speeding ticket is to contest it. So you did. But you have to decide whether or not to subpoena the officer, and you aren't sure what to do https://learnersgist.com/celbux-nsfas-login-generate-nsfascelbux-voucher-withdraw-funds/

Contesting a speeding ticket is not a difficult task. Beating a speeding ticket sometimes is, but if you have the right information it is a possibility. And subpoenaing the officer is a big decision in a traffic ticket case. In many place, like Seattle in the example above, if you decide not to subpoena the police officer, the report is usually entered into evidence by the prosecution. This means the court will simply read the officers report (which is signed under oath) and make a decision based on that and any evidence you present to the court.

But when should you subpoena the officer and when shouldn't you? Let's talk about when you shouldn't subpoena the officer first. If you look at your ticket, or the officer's ticket, which will have his written report on it (you should always ask for this information - the prosecutor has an obligation to give it to you if you ask) and you can clearly see that something is wrong that will allow you to beat the traffic ticket, don't subpoena the officer so they have a chance to correct it.

For example, in my Bellevue traffic ticket example above. Let's say the police officer, for whatever reason, writes down the wrong highway 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 correct that statement on his report. You would simply want to point out to the court that contrary to the officer's report you were on the I-90 bridge and could not have been on 520 as suggested (in a way this is like an alibi). If you have a friend that was with you they could come and testify to that as well. In that case going against the ticket and not the officer is better because the testimony (the speeding ticket) conflicts with the actual facts. The prosecutor would not be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were speeding on 520 as the ticket suggests.

You should subpoena the officer, however, when you need to point out all of the things he forgot to mention on his ticket. For example, let's say you were driving in extremely 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 cars, and that there were other probable interfering factors present that day. You would want to call the officer to the stand to ask him about this, get him to point out that it is possible that he shot another car and not yours, and that maybe you were not speeding. If you do call the officer to the stand, however, remember not to try to destroy his credibility by calling him a liar - that tactic just won't work.

If you get a traffic ticket and face the decision of whether to subpoena the police officer or not, take a minute to think about why you would or would not want him or her there, and proceed from there. And if you want a little advice before hand, it always helps to contact the professionals - traffic lawyers - who can help point you in the right direction.