Posted: 11/1/2007 6:28:13 PM EDT
|
Reference a thread in the MI hometown forum. What does everyone think about officers amending citations to an original charge at an informal hearing? Say I issue for 5 over instead of 15 on the street. I routinely amend the cite to the original charge at the informal, thinking that if we have a hearing for the violation it should be for the whole deal. Just checking my thinking on this. At least one thinks this is punishment for exercising the right to a hearing. That is not my intention by any means and I am wondering if I am looking at it incorrectly. Joe |
I have never heard of this practice, but my gut reaction is that it isn't a good thing to do. While it may not be your intention, it effectively is a tax on exercising a right to go to trial/hearing. If it was worth writing as 5 over and that was your decision at the time, why suddenly change it because they decide to combat it? |
That isn't the mentality of it at all. In fact except for the last year every court proceeding is overtime. With our policy on court OT it is actually very good for me to go to court. I viewed it the same as being offered a lesser offense as a deal in place of the higher charge. I wouldn't expect a plea offer on a criminal case to be rejected and then go to trial on the reduced offer. While it doesn't happen every time, the practice is common here and has been ever since I started over 12 years ago. Hyperion made some decent points in the MI hometown thread. While 4 or 5 people isn't enough for me to change my mind about the practice I shall look at it a bit closer before my next court. Joe |
|
Been there, done that. Very common. Basically, it's a form of "road-side plea bargining". I have no problem with asking the court to amend a charge because I want the person to have a fair trial/hearing FOR WHAT THEY DID, not what I thought I would lower the charge to. I lowered the charge to help out in some small way, very much like the state would do in a plea bargin, if that is not acceptable, so be it, we will conduct a trial/hearing for WHAT YOU DID. I don't do it ANYMORE because just like everything else, one or two people come along every now and then and screw it up for everyone else. I no longer practice reducing citations but will ask the court for reduced considerations if found guilty. In most cases, jeopardy does not attach UNTIL you are sworn in (or jury) so amending a charge beforehand, at an informal hearing or setting, is no big deal so long as it is done BEFORE any official hearing/trial. At least that is how I understand it... perhaps an Atty will come along shortly and correct me... JBCHRITZ... if your Judge has no problem with it, I would continue on doing it IF you personally feel that it is fair. If you feel that you are amending charges because you are pissed, don't do it. I train all new Deputies to AVOID GIVING A CITATION or MAKING A CHARGE PURLY OUT OF ANGER... it is bad juju and to do so and has nothing to do with justice. I can put anyone in contact with my zone partners and they will tell you I have never written a ticket out of anger. It's just something I started the day I got into LE. ETA: Although rare, and not since being in Florida, I have seen on a few occasions citations written after the fact and while in court, as a means to dispose of a case (issue at hand -vs- reduced charge). So long as the defense atty and defendant agree to it, it's a non-issue IMO. |
|
I did focus on catching real criminals and got put on days for it. Long story but I am assigned to a traffic team and when I worked 1700-0500 I focused on making stops for arrests. Some days I had few stops and others a lot. They didn't like the number of stops and I got switched to days. Did you read my post in Hometown? Almost word for word about something being one way for a long time not being correct anymore. Weird. I care more about what the practice really is then what the public at large think about it. As I am sure you know you could dump his bag of weed and give him a parking ticket and some will still complain about the fine. I appreciate the input. Stay safe Joe |
|
Used to be a routine practice. (from what I'm told) Speeder 15 over and they were cooperative and polite, no repeat speeders. Write for 10 over so it doesn't ding them (fine/ins. etc). Prosecution and judges have said, that's our job. You write what you stop for. Makes sense. Remember, it's probable cause for the stop. You want that part accurate. |
Depending on the format of tickets in your area writing one low can turn into trying to explain why you filed a false affirmation or filled out an official document with false info etc. Not something I would generally do as a small town good ole boy of course. I get my balls busted by the cops in town enough as it is.  |
I didn't take it serious, my displeasure is with my bosses for the whole thing. It was not a pretty conversation and still leaves a bad taste. The Sgt who used to run this team was named on more than one traffic trap website by name.  I even have the boots to go with the name. Spent all summer on the motor. No worries Joe |
)|
It sounds to me it's exactly retaliation for the individual exercising their right to a hearing. I can't see it any other way. If they're good for an over-15 at the curb, and you write an over-5 then you ought to stick with the over-5. I know if it happened to me I'd be one pissed-off citizen; like maybe complain-filing citizen. Maybe TV and newspaper notifying citizen. |
|
The only time I ammend anything is on the scene. Since you stated something about speeding I will give you an example. It the speed limit is 65 and they were going 85+ and I stop them a few things might occure. Depending on their demonor and prior driving history I may lower the offense speed while on scene to 84 or below. This will allow them to take a defensive driving course in stead of paying a hefty fine. Once the scene has been cleared I do not alter traffic tickets. Another alteration I sometimes make is registration stickers. They must be displayed on the driver side of of the front window. If its expired but they have the new one in the car, I will usually take off the charge if they peal off the old one and put on the new one infront of me. Most of everything depends on the violators attiude. |
You'd rather the officer write you for 15 over? Wow, a citizen like you is one in a million. TV anchor person: So Fred, your pissed the officer tried to cut you some slack? Wait, let me get CNN on the phone...they'll love this. |
|
go down, but not up. If you give a break at the driver's window, that's your discretion. You start amending tickets upwards in front of the judge because they want a trial.... not only is he going to find them not guilty, he'll probably eventually haul you into chambers and tell you to knock it off. If he doesn't say it directly to you on the court record in front of a packed courtroom. You don't want to lose credibility by doing stuff like that. If you have a solid violation, write that for exactly what it is. Let them deal with it, let the prosecutor choose to maybe offer them a little break on it in exchange for a plea rather than going to trial. |
|
Here we do things differently.... Ticket is for whatever the cop says you were doing. You go to court and the DA divides the court between people who want a trial and those who plead "no contest" The "no contest" people form a line and the DA marks down the charge to 9mph over the limit or reduces it to "improper equipment" and you pay $220 in court costs and $90-$500 in fines. The "take that shit to trial" people.... get fucked and never get out of tickets anyways because the police are never incorrect. Enjoy your points on your license and the mega fine to boot. 
|
That reminds me of a retired judge we had... Beginning of court... Ok I need two lines in front of me. All of you who want to plead guilty get in this line. And all of you who want to be found guilty stand in this line. |
That's not exactly a fair comparison. You're talking about dropping a charge in return for a plea as opposed to upgrading a charge for not taking a plea. There's a huge difference between the two. Dropping a charge in return for a plea saves the court time, the public money, and gives the perp something to think about. Upgrading a charge for not taking a plea does not save the court time, does not save the public money, and pisses off the perp. Furthermore, the decision to drop the charge (in your scenario) is not made by the officer, but the prosecutor, who is the one who decides what gets prosecuted (and who is either elected or controlled by an elected official). When the officer upgrades the charge he does so on his own, before the prosecutor get ahold of it. |