IPFS
Slay Your Traffic Tickets!
Greg Slaughter
More About: ConspiraciesNo Prosecutor or Cop Acts as Prosecutor in Traffic Court Legal Grounds for Dismissal!
Can
the cop lawfully be the prosecutor in a traffic court case? & |
| Can the traffic court lawfully conduct a traffic court trial when there is no prosecutor? |
The
state of New York decriminalized minor traffic offenses in 1934 with the
creation of the 'civil traffic infraction'. New York blazed the legal
path that other states quickly followed in decriminalizing minor traffic
offense by also adopting the civil traffic infraction. |
The
creation of the civil traffic infraction allowed the courts to do away
with costly jury trials for traffic tickets. The courts reasoned that
jury trials were not necessary because the infraction was a 'civil offense'
carrying only a 'small' civil fine as a possible penalty and no possibility
of jail time. |
| The
next causality of the civil infraction was the prosecutor. Lawyers are
expensive and therefore, many states decided that the lawyer/prosecutor
was not needed for civil traffic infraction cases — the cop could
be the prosecutor. Some other states, such as California, correctly legally
rationalized that the cop could not be the prosecutor (People v. Marcroft
(1992) 6 Cal.App.4th). However, a California court also (People v.
Carlucci , 23 Cal.3d 249) concocted the irrational decision that
no prosecutor was necessary to conduct a civil traffic trial. |
The
decision to make the officer the prosecutor presents a great constitutional
problem for traffic courts. Justice and the Constitution demands that
courts are to be fair and impartial — not favoring one side over
the other. The court, by allowing the state to be represented by a non-attorney
(the cop), is favoring the state over the defendant. If the defendant
elects to be represented in traffic court, the court demands that the
defendant go out and hire a Bar attorney at their expense.. Such treatment
of the defendant by the court is indisputably biased and blatantly unfair
treatment and is solid grounds for dismissal of the defendant's traffic
case. |
Civil
traffic cases where there is no prosecutor present in the court are treated
by traffic courts much like a small claims court action. In small claims
courts both sides simply tell their stories to the judge and are allowed
to cross examine one another under oath and the judge is allowed to ask
questions of both sides. |
| Traffic
courts treat the traffic court hearing like a small claims court only
to the degree that it serves their purpose (collection of revenue). Where
it does not serve the court's purpose (threat of loss of revenue), they
treat traffic court cases like a different legal animal altogether. For
instance, in a civil small claims court the plaintiff must show up at
the time of trial, or the case is dismissed. However, in a traffic trial
where there is no prosecutor, the plaintiff (the state or the People)
never shows up and never does the court dismiss the case. |
Who
is present in court to legally uphold the claim of the state or the People
against the defendant when there is no prosecutor? The judge? The Constitution
requires the judge to remain fair and impartial. How about the cop? For
the reasons explained already, the cop cannot be the prosecutor and in
regards to California, an appeals court in the Marcroft case ruled that
the cop is the witness, no more, no less. |
When there
is no prosecutor, there is no one present in court who can legally uphold
the claim of the state or the People against the defendant. In this instance,
the state or the People (the plaintiff) have legally abandoned their claim
against the defendant in the exact manner as a plaintiff in any other
civil court proceeding except traffic. |
| Traffic
courts are not concerned with justice or protecting people's rights under
the Constitution, but maximizing the collection of revenue is the traffic
court's real and true agenda. Lest anyone be inclined to believe otherwise,
try challenging a traffic court judge sometime by moving to dismiss your
traffic case because the state or the People have abandoned their claim
against you by not having a prosecutor in court. Watch as the judge's
temperament and demeanor instantly change. The judge will be quick to
remind you that the state grants the court the right to try a civil traffic
case absent a prosecutor. If that doesn't immediately shut you up, then
the judge will invoke a judicially intimidating tone of voice accompanied
by some strong facial expressions, as the judge instructs you to move
on to something else. |
The
abandonment of the state's or the People's claim for lack of prosecution
is a raw nerve that traffic court judges do not want exposed in open court.
Such a claim exposes to everyone the fraud of the court and the court's
mere pretense at justice. |
Slay
your traffic ticket with Ticket
Slayer! |
Ticket
Slayer has a National Traffic Dismissal Rate of 85% — 92% in California |
Author
Contact: GregS@TicketSlayer.com |
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Live Chat
Telegram
Telegram
