His Magistrate
So I went to court. 8:30 am on a rainy Thursday morning.
As I read a book waiting for my turn, I heard the gentleman currently on the stand being cited for EXACTLY the same violation as me. Failure to Stop at a Stop Sign at the exact same intersection on the exact same day. I closed my book and listened thinking I might glean some valuable information from his case proceedings.
He was also cited for no proof of insurance and a seat belt violation. The judge asked if he had cleared up the proof of insurance. The gentleman said yes. He asked if the seat belt issue had been dealt with. The gentleman said yes. And before the judge could even ask how the gentleman pleaded in the accusation of failure to stop the officer says, "If he's taken care of both of those issues, I am unconcerned with his failure to stop" and the case was dismissed and no charges were filed and the gentleman in the blue shirt was free to go. Yippee! I thought.
And then a woman was called to the stand who had been pulled over for speeding on I-94. The judge said she was ticketed for going 65 in a 60. I thought, "Holy cats! A ticket for 5 miles over the speed limit? I'm doomed in this state!" The woman admitted guilt but requested leniency because she was a "good driver" and even had a letter from the State of Illinois stating as such. The judge pointed out that the radar gun actually recorded her going 78 in a 60 mph zone and that it was a construction zone (I was certain I could hear Music of Impending Doom playing in the background). He explained to her that the officer COULD have written her ticket for 18 over the speed limit, the most egregious of speeding violations. He COULD have written her ticket for between 11-17 over the speed limit, the Mama Bear of speeding violations, but no, he actually showed her a remarkable amount of leniency when he wrote the ticket for just 5 over. BUT THEN the judge goes on to say that he will take into account that the woman stated she was a "good driver" (he never looked at her document) and that she had driven quite a distance for a court hearing and so he changed her citation to going 75 in a 70 which is somehow a much less offense in Michigan (with only 2 points on her license instead of 3) blah, blah, blah. And I thought YIPPEEE this judge is awfully nice today. (Cause, seriously, if I lived in Illinois and got a speeding ticket in Michigan and the officer had already reduced it from 18 over IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE to 5 over, I think I would have said a prayer of gratitude and gotten out of the state and never looked back.)
And then it was my turn. So they state, for the record, what my citation is for. And the judge asks me for my plea. And I tell him that I am not guilty of the citation. And so I'm sworn in.
At which point the officer goes into a five minute explanation of their little sting operation that got me ticketed in the first place (along with the gentleman in blue) and all the details of my violation and blah, blah, blah. And then the judge asks me if I have anything to say. And I say that I do and that I distinctly remember stopping because I had JUST MOVED THERE three days ago and had to CAREFULLY read the street signs and that even if I had wanted to turn the corner (more than 5 mph according to the officer) I would have hit the two cars who were immediately stopped in front of me. I did not point out that the officer did not ask for proof of insurance. I did not point out that I was, indeed, as I always am, wearing my seat belt. The judge suggests that perhaps I was paying so much attention to the street sign and the cars in front of me that I failed to stop. The judge then asks me if I'm now a permanent resident in the state of Michigan. I say yes. He says, "Then I suggest you get a Michigan Driver's License." I said, "I have one now." (but no, three days after my move to the state, I had not yet taken the time to get a new driver's license. I was too busy trying to SELL A FREAKING HOUSE IN PA.)
So the judge says that he'll change my citation because I'm new to the state. So what do I get? A reduction in the fine by $15 and instead of a "Failure To Stop" violation, I now have an "Impeding Traffic" violation. So, instead of going to fast through a stop, I was apparently going to slow for traffic.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I will try to be thankful that I don't have points on my license for this (I think, he mumbled the whole thing so I'm not certain) but still. I have to say, I'm a little miffed.
Next time, I'm wearing blue to court and I'm going to blow through the stop sign at 78 mph without my seat belt on and without any proof of insurance.
As I read a book waiting for my turn, I heard the gentleman currently on the stand being cited for EXACTLY the same violation as me. Failure to Stop at a Stop Sign at the exact same intersection on the exact same day. I closed my book and listened thinking I might glean some valuable information from his case proceedings.
He was also cited for no proof of insurance and a seat belt violation. The judge asked if he had cleared up the proof of insurance. The gentleman said yes. He asked if the seat belt issue had been dealt with. The gentleman said yes. And before the judge could even ask how the gentleman pleaded in the accusation of failure to stop the officer says, "If he's taken care of both of those issues, I am unconcerned with his failure to stop" and the case was dismissed and no charges were filed and the gentleman in the blue shirt was free to go. Yippee! I thought.
And then a woman was called to the stand who had been pulled over for speeding on I-94. The judge said she was ticketed for going 65 in a 60. I thought, "Holy cats! A ticket for 5 miles over the speed limit? I'm doomed in this state!" The woman admitted guilt but requested leniency because she was a "good driver" and even had a letter from the State of Illinois stating as such. The judge pointed out that the radar gun actually recorded her going 78 in a 60 mph zone and that it was a construction zone (I was certain I could hear Music of Impending Doom playing in the background). He explained to her that the officer COULD have written her ticket for 18 over the speed limit, the most egregious of speeding violations. He COULD have written her ticket for between 11-17 over the speed limit, the Mama Bear of speeding violations, but no, he actually showed her a remarkable amount of leniency when he wrote the ticket for just 5 over. BUT THEN the judge goes on to say that he will take into account that the woman stated she was a "good driver" (he never looked at her document) and that she had driven quite a distance for a court hearing and so he changed her citation to going 75 in a 70 which is somehow a much less offense in Michigan (with only 2 points on her license instead of 3) blah, blah, blah. And I thought YIPPEEE this judge is awfully nice today. (Cause, seriously, if I lived in Illinois and got a speeding ticket in Michigan and the officer had already reduced it from 18 over IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE to 5 over, I think I would have said a prayer of gratitude and gotten out of the state and never looked back.)
And then it was my turn. So they state, for the record, what my citation is for. And the judge asks me for my plea. And I tell him that I am not guilty of the citation. And so I'm sworn in.
At which point the officer goes into a five minute explanation of their little sting operation that got me ticketed in the first place (along with the gentleman in blue) and all the details of my violation and blah, blah, blah. And then the judge asks me if I have anything to say. And I say that I do and that I distinctly remember stopping because I had JUST MOVED THERE three days ago and had to CAREFULLY read the street signs and that even if I had wanted to turn the corner (more than 5 mph according to the officer) I would have hit the two cars who were immediately stopped in front of me. I did not point out that the officer did not ask for proof of insurance. I did not point out that I was, indeed, as I always am, wearing my seat belt. The judge suggests that perhaps I was paying so much attention to the street sign and the cars in front of me that I failed to stop. The judge then asks me if I'm now a permanent resident in the state of Michigan. I say yes. He says, "Then I suggest you get a Michigan Driver's License." I said, "I have one now." (but no, three days after my move to the state, I had not yet taken the time to get a new driver's license. I was too busy trying to SELL A FREAKING HOUSE IN PA.)
So the judge says that he'll change my citation because I'm new to the state. So what do I get? A reduction in the fine by $15 and instead of a "Failure To Stop" violation, I now have an "Impeding Traffic" violation. So, instead of going to fast through a stop, I was apparently going to slow for traffic.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I will try to be thankful that I don't have points on my license for this (I think, he mumbled the whole thing so I'm not certain) but still. I have to say, I'm a little miffed.
Next time, I'm wearing blue to court and I'm going to blow through the stop sign at 78 mph without my seat belt on and without any proof of insurance.
Comments
By claiming you are not guilty... MI courts consider that calling the officer a liar. Asking for forgiveness often works well.
They are also very tough on construction zone speeding here after several workers were injured - which is why they are not as hard on the 75 in the 70.
But by all means welcome! Welcome to the friendly state that is waving hello.
Something is just wrong about that.
So wrong.
The officer was so mean I started to cry. That's what I remember more than the money we had to pay. Of course, I might just be a little over-sensitive, but being called "stupid" rubs me the wrong way. Paul was hopping mad! Unfortunately, there was no question of driving back all that way just to go to traffic court, so we just paid it.