California knows how to party (and ticket)

What follows is how I contested a dubious LA traffic ticket; it's a move inspired by one of Adam Carolla's many rants about the "chicken shit tickets" doled out by LA officers to "rape the taxpayers".

In June 2012 I was ticketed for talking on my phone while driving, a violation of California's Wireless Communications Device Law. I fundamentally disagree with this law. Why single out cell phones when everything is a distraction from the road? Babies. Makeup. In-dash DVD players. And especially billboards. If the state of California really wants to prevent "distracted driving", they'll outlaw and tear down every last roadside billboard. The sole intent of billboards (and advertising in general) is to  

divert your attention/money.

So again, why single out cell phone use as the culprit for distracted driving? Here's why: because everyone has one, so the law is arbitrarily enforceable on 100% of the general driving population. And more traffic stops means more chicken shit tickets means more revenue for a state government that's proven to be an incompetent financial steward.

If you live(d) in LA then you'll remember the red light camera tickets. But the city ultimately bailed on the entire initiative due to public resistance, in the form of citizens contesting the tickets, and others' outright refusal to pay the fines. So now the enforcement of cell phone tickets is the city's latest/greatest profit path of least resistance from the public.

A few weeks after my traffic stop I received an envelope from the LA Superior Court. Inside was a form whereby I needed to decide how to plea. To the best of my memory there were three choices: 1. plead guilty, 2. plead not guilty and request a court trial, 3. plead not guilty and request a Trial by Declaration. I checked the box for Trial by Declaration, which means contesting the violation with a written statement of facts instead of having to appear in court.

The Trial by Declaration option seemed too good to be true. I wouldn't have to take off time from work. Or slog through traffic to/from the court downtown. Or even pay to park downtown. I kept waiting for the catch. Sure, I had to send a check for bail ($160), but that's the same amount I would've surrendered for a guilty plea. And at least with contesting I'd have a chance to win and then have the bail money refunded.

Paperwork for the Trial by Declaration arrived a few weeks after submitting my plea. It was due back to the court by 8/30/2012. I waited until 8/29/2012 to return the form, with the thought that maximum prolongation of the process would work in my favor.

For a government document, the Trial by Declaration form is surprisingly straightforward. There's a statement of facts section, wherein I plead my case : 

I was pulled over while idling in heavy traffic on the 10E / 110N interchange, for what the officer implied was talking on my phone while driving. However, during the traffic stop the officer never made direct mention of my phone or me talking on my phone. Further, I never made an admission of guilt. My back windshield and rear windows are tinted at 5% (black), which makes it difficult to see anything happening in the car from a rear point of view. When the officer hypothetically spotted me talking on my phone while driving, he wasn't parked roadside, he was idling in traffic behind me. So his rear point of view of my actions as driver would've been obscured by the tint.

Also, the responding officer misspelled my last name on the citation--it’s “Likover” not “Likouer”. This simple lack of attention to detail further damages his credibility for the already suspect judgment call that is the basis of this ticket.  

My statement was neither well written nor well thought out. My entire defense was tenuous, at best. Instead of denying that I'd broken the law, I resorted to casting doubt on the plausibility that the officer could've known that I had broken the law. But if nothing else, I got to take a parting shot at him for fudging my name.


The next step was confirming that my plea had been received. This was easily done via the LA Superior Court website. It's not surprising how efficient the state government is when it comes to maintaining a database of such a viable revenue source, traffic tickets. I confirmed that my plea had been received in time; the trial date was set for 12/17/2012.

A few months later, after 12/17/2012 had passed, I began to obsessively check the LA Superior Court website at least once a day for a verdict. But weeks went by without any change in status.

Then, the morning of 1/9/2012, more than six months after I'd been issued the chicken shit ticket, I had closure: DISMISSED. I had to rub my eyes and Google "DISMISSED" to make sure that this meant I won, and it did.

I'll never know if the dismissal was due to my paper thin defense (doubtful) or because of a failure on the officer's end (more likely). My guess is the officer didn't bother to follow up because for every one person who contests this garbage, there's nine people who just roll over and pay the fine.

I'll update this post as soon as I'm refunded my $160.


UPDATE (3/6/2013)
Yesterday in the mail I received this: 

That's right, my goddamned $160 refund check! Three full months after the ticket's date of dismissal (11/30/2012). 

Suck it, California Highway Patrol and your horrible chickenshit tickets!

P.S. - After scanning the ticket one final time before shredding it for my ticker tape parade, I've also noticed that in addition to misspelling my last name, the responding officer also miscalculated my age ;)