Parking ticket scenario, whats my play?

[bblock99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll probably get it mailed to you...hopefully the address the car is registered to is different than your current one....then you can at least plead ignorance. Also if it was truly 7:01 who knows whose watch was correct...you could probably argue his watch was incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think a judge would go against the parking guys watch? There's a time stamp right in his little machine that prints the time on the ticket.

And how is this parking ticket $115???? That seems a little bit outrageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is to say his little machine is correct? Is it hot-synced to the atomic clock in denver or something? The time on my blackberry is always horribly off, why is his little hand held machine any better? It's battery powered right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that the machine is any better, but I would venture to guess that the judge would go by the machine over the OPs watch.

[Riverman]

You will lose. They will give you a ticket and mail it to you. You will not pay and the fine will go up. Then, when you renew your license they will make you pay.

I learned about parking tickets the hard way in college, but I do have one funny story. I emerged from my dorm to see the tow truck literally backing up to my car. I got in without a word and drove away as the towtruck guy started screaming at me.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
trial by jury man, trial by jury. Get the prosecutor to convince a jury that the meter maids clock is accurate to within 1 minute at any given time.

[/ QUOTE ]

DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I know that in speeding ticket trials, the officer's radar is presumed to be accurate, unless that accuracy is called into question by the defense. The same can be said of the accuracy of a Breath-alyzer blood-alcohol measuring device. In either case, the burden of proving the accuracy of those measuring devices falls upon the prosecution. Now, I understand that the charge in this case is not speeding nor DUI. However, it seems to me that the basic legal principal still holds: The burden of proving the officer's wristwatch as accurate, to within a legal degree of certainty, falls upon the prosecution. If they can't do that, the evidence is without foundation.

JUDGE: Mr Prosecutor, the testimony by the officer of the time in question, is currently without foundation. Would you like to re-call the officer to the stand?

PROSECUTOR: Yes, Judge, thank you. I call Officer Jones, please.

JUDGE: Officer Jones, please remember that you are still under oath.

PROSECUTOR: Officer Jones, you testified that you issued the citation at 7:01 AM. How did you determine that that was the precise time?

COP: The TIM (Ticket Issuing Machine) has a clock built in. The ticket that is generated is time-stamped by the machine.

PROSECUTOR: How do you know that time is accurate?

COP: Before leaving the station house, I checked the time on the TIM to the time on the station house clock. At the end of my shift, I checked their synchronicity again.

PROSECUTOR: The times on each device were identical?

COP: Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR: How do you know the clock at the station house is accurate?

COP: It matched the time on all the computers.

PROSECUTOR: And why should we presume *those* to be accurate?

COP: Because those computers are linked with the County Sheriff's office, the State Police Barracks, and the FBI. That network of computers, which transmit and receive time-sensitive information, are the Official Time of all law enforcement in this country.

PROSECUTOR: But can we say for certain that THAT time is accurate?

COP: We don't need to say "for certain". We only need to say that it's "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's just not reasonable to suggest that not only are the TIM, the station house clock, and the Official Time of Law Enforcement all unable to keep accurate time, but they also coincidentally show the *same* wrong time? It's just not reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the time being shown on all these independant timepieces.

PROSECUTOR: I agree. No more questions.

JUDGE: Would you care to cross-examine the witness?

DEFENDANT: You just made up all that stuff about the network of computers, and the Official Time of Law Enforcement. Didn't you?

COP: Of course I did. But unless you have evidence to contradict me, it's all going in the record as irrefutable. What's your next move?

DEFENDANT: Your Honor....I'd like to change my plea to 'guilty'. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[bobhalford]

Yeah, I think you've lost. They don't mess around with parking tickets in NY.