questionsshould this guy have just paid the $95?


He was guilty and I think he should have paid the ticket. But the statement that he shouldn't be allowed to "game the system" rankles me enough to cheer for him. I used to be a Deputy Court Clerk and I well know the system is rigged against defendants. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is long lost at MuniCourt, if the cop says you did something wrong then you did it. The defendant's word has less than the weight of a feather. Perhaps it's because the money they take from defendants pays the salaries of the police officer, the prosecutor and the judge. Conflict of interest, anyone? I despise "justice" for-profit.


"Game the system" was what the author of the article said and not attributed to anyone else.

My favorite part was this: '"They made it clear to me walking out of the courtroom that they were not going to let this go," Ledgerwood said. "I feel like there's something fundamentally wrong, trying to get around the rules. This is wrong. ...I'm not trying to get out of a speeding ticket at this point."' ... Um, how exactly is speeding (especially on a regular basis) not "trying to get around the rules"?!?


If the town dismissed the case, shouldn't it end there? Isn't double jeopardy a factor here? The town dismissed the case and then reissued the ticket. I don't think you should be able to do that.

That being said, I think this has become the all time world championship pi$$ing match.


From the article:

---"He is a chronic speeder who has the uncanny ability to get out of speeding tickets," Benjamin Yoder, the Indian Hill assistant law director, said. "Somebody is going to get hurt." ---

That's the salient point for me.

The dpsht knew he was speeding, knew he frequently speeds (and just doesn't get caught very often), and gambled that he could get off yet again. I have -zero- sympathy for him. This time he lost the bet. Boo hoo.

My former husband is a police officer, and I used to do ride-alongs with him. I was astounded at the casual lies people made, and amused at the number of folks whose "defense" was to whine that cops should be out chasing "real" criminals. ("If people like you would stop breaking the speed laws, I could go chase bank robbers instead.")

I almost always drive 5-10 miles over the limit, especially on rural roads, highways, and interstates. If I get stopped, I'm going to get a ticket I deserve. I'll deal with that. So should he.


He will end up winning in the Supreme Court and then suing the city for harassment and making 50x what he paid into the court system up to this point..

Only the residents will feel the budget cut pain


All points about the guy's character aside. He was issued a speeding ticket, the officer didn't show in court, the prosecution dismissed the case. Should have been the end of the story.


@devexityspace: They won't feel it too much though. That's like the Beverly Hills of Ohio. Also, you don't speed there unless you're a total idiot. Because you will definitely get a ticket.


Meh is correct.

If the copper had shown up in court like he was supposed to it would have been an open and shut case, and his $95 paid. As it is, they screwed up. Perhaps it's not common knowledge that your arresting officer (arresting meaning 'stopping') needs to be present to present witness, but it sure as hell should be for them.

Aside: I've attended traffic court eleven times in the last 20 years. For a variety of reasons some of which I was happy to plead guilty to - and for my honesty recieve a reduced sentence - and some of which I wasn't.

I have 'gotten off' every single one I was innocent of, or the police prosecuted incorrectly. The one that sticks in my mind - and the last one: The copper pulled me over for 'failing to signal left'. When in fact my indicator was faulty. I demonstrated at the time I was pulled over and would have been happy to pay the $45 fine which didn't carry points. He continued to press the $90 fine which carried points. Judge disagreed. $0 fine..


whether or not he deserves the ticket is irrelevant at this point. The legal system screwed up, he didn't pull any wool over anyone's eyes. Now, it's about the principals the justice system is founded on, I'd fight it too. They don't get to manipulate the rules to teach a chronic speeder a lesson. How and why are these prosecutors being given free reign to piss away the cities money like this? 30-40 hours is probably a load of BS (I'd bet it's much more by now) but still they shouldn't be spending 1 hour total on a speeding ticket. Paying the ticket is easier, but it's much more than admitting guilt. Paying the ticket now would be allowing a mis-aligned justice system to walk all over due process. I admire this guys diligence.


On principle alone, I would fight the case, as well.

Once a case is dismissed, that should be the end of it. They are just sore losers. The officer should not have written a ticket if he can not show up in court. I have had plenty of tickets for speeding. Most deserved. I hired an attorney, and got off on most. (The only one I did not hire an attorney or fight was a speeding ticket in a school zone. I paid up, as having my head up my a$$ should not endanger kids.)


@slickwilly and @pyxientx : It's usually not a matter of the ticketing officer just not caring about showing up in traffic court. There are a myriad reasons for his not appearing: it was his day off and he had plans to be elsewhere; he was busy on the road with another ticket or accident; he was in another courtroom, etc.


What bothers me isn't the motorist's refusal to settle, but the local government's willingness to spend so much money (in time—possibly even overtime pay—and attorneys' fees) out of spite. Sure, they claim it's about safety, but is the $95 ticket going to be the thing that makes this guy stop speeding? If anything, he'll wear it as a badge of pride, and keep on keeping on.

How many textbooks worth of taxpayer dollars have the town spent chasing a $95 ticket they botched? I know this is gross overgeneralizing, but local governments too often tend to forget where their spending money comes from.


@dupedyetagain: No doubt. I think one of the problems townships like this have is they have so much money they end up spending it on stupid things like this just because they can instead of spending it on improving services/better training/having a full-time prosecutor instead of paying for a boutique law firm, and the list goes on.


@magic cave: It is true the the officer may not have been able to have been there for legitimate reasons, but you know what, tough noogies. If the witness can't be produced at the designated time, then its going to get tossed. And they did toss it. But once a case has been dismissed, I don't think they can just reverse that decision. That is what he is fighting now. His due process was violated and the city will end up paying for it with a harassment suit.

If I read that right, they reissued the same speeding ticket, isn't that a double jeopardy issue?