POST#39 __ ROUGH ROAD AHEAD

Hearing To Dismiss
(Part 5)

The hearing to dismiss Nancy’s violation of VC22107 continued. The commissioner had countered Nancy’s argument that altering a traffic ticket made it invalid. He had countered her argument that the Notice of Correction form didn’t authorize the citing officer to have a driver sign to appear in court for one vehicle code violation and then change the violation to one the driver didn’t sign to appear in court for.

Now the Commissioner continued to refute any argument that would lead to an admission that Nancy’s case should be dismissed.

Commissioner:
“I’m just concluding based upon what you’ve read in so forth, that that is what they decided to do, which they also have a right to amend the complaint in many cases all the way up until the date of judgment. But none the less based on what was filed it appears that they elected to amend the complaint and add what they thought would be the correct charge.”

Nancy Driver:
“Okay. They altered the ticket.”

Commissioner:
“Right.”

Nancy Driver:
“Before it was committed to court.”

Commissioner:
“That’s what it appears. Correct.”

Nancy Driver:
“Okay and actually in the statement that I made here and as well as here, they’re not supposed to do that. They’re not supposed to alter the ticket.”

Commissioner:
“Can be a misdemeanor. Right?”

Nancy had nothing to say to this. The point of the hearing was if an altered traffic ticket was valid and if the citing officer could use a form to change one charge to another and the commissioner was focused on other issues. Her comment was once again “Ummmm.”

Commissioner:
“Okay.”

Nancy Driver:
“And that’s you know, where I’m saying, yes, the case should be dismissed on that point alone because they altered the ticket over my signature. And they did not go through the correct avenue of the Notice of Correction alone which is the only thing they should have done if they were going to do that.”

Commissioner:
“Right. At the worst case scenario, from my perspective, the officer can be prosecuted for a misdemeanor, but that is up to the District Attorney.”

Nancy Driver:
He’s Okay”. (Meaning why would that even be considered?)

Commissioner:
” Because I didn’t do a lot of research on this but I suspect that statute was written primarily to avoid fraud, favoritism and things of that nature.”

Nancy Driver”
Static blocks out what her reply was.

Commissioner:
” Exactly, and what is clear to me on the face of the transaction is that they were merely trying to get before the court what they thought would be the proper charge for trial.”

Nancy Driver:
“ Ummmmm”

Commissioner:
“For you to be arraigned on that.”

Nancy Driver:
“Ummmmm”

Commissioner:
“ Which I think is consistent because the amendment is, it has the same code section on it, whomever wrote on the citation. So really what they did, is that they, on a mere technicality of writing on the citation. That’s what I’m saying. I don’t think that in itself has a bearing on you and what it is alleged that you did. It may have a bearing on whether the officer incorrectly followed the statute on how to get it to a point where if focuses on you, but that’s a matter between the officer, his supervisors and the district attorney and whoever it was who wrote on that citation.”

Nancy was worn down by her effort to keep the Commissioner focused on the purpose of the hearing.
She was confused by the commissioner’s arguments and felt frustrated at arguing against what made no sense to her. She would just have to try harder.

Keeping Score
Commissioner 1 point—Changed the subject thus blocking Nancy’s argument for dismissal.
Nancy 1 point—Had the commissioner agree that her traffic ticket shouldn’t have been altered

Posted on November 10th, 2008 by paula
Filed under: Uncategorized