Speeding ticket question

Last week I got a speeding ticket. I was also cited because the address on my registration did not match that on my license. The back of the ticket says the fine for speeding is $300 and the incorrect address is $190, although if I correct the address within 30 days that can be dropped. When I called the number on the back of the ticket it said the fines were $190 for speeding and $115 for the address.

As most locals can tell you, attorneys can easily get the fines knocked down significantly, and eliminate any points. I hear they plea it down to a parking ticket. There are billboards all over the city advertising this service. I went to Ticket Wackers for mine. They charged me $80. I got the impression that was all I would likely have to pay, assuming I sent in my updated registration after I received it.

My question is, why do the courts in Vegas incentivize using an attorney? I understand why they would accept a lower amount if I accept a settlement, thus not wasting the courts time. But how and why is at attorney able to help on such a routine violation? I plan to write a blog entry about this, so would like to understand what is really going on. I asked the secretary at Ticket Wackers these questions, but she said "I have no idea."

Wizard,

I am not a Vegas resident, nor an attorney, but merely a poor law student (financially and performance-wise). I know in Florida, where I live, it is simply a massive saving of judicial resources. Generally the ticket law firms can go before a judge (whom they all become acquainted with) with a massive amount of tickets- and aggregately settle them, saving the court time and money. I think there is a trade-off with settling these due to the increase in fines, though I have no idea how grand the trade-off actually is in practice.

The Judges (in my belief) probably prefer dealing with attorneys, and can thus save themselves much headache by not having to hear 400 people ramble their stories each day in traffic court. I think that is part of the incentive as well.

Thanks. What makes that explanation hard to accept entirely is that if you call the phone number on the back of the ticket you go through an automated menu that lets to settle the matter for lesser amounts that stated on the ticket. So there is already a working process in place to reward bad drivers to not fight the ticket. There are similar processes in California and Washington (where I have also had tickets) but I don't think an attorney would have been able to help in routine cases in those states.

Well in that case, I'm stumped. Maybe if you settle via the automated system, it will still add points, and push up against your violation limit. Perhaps the attorney can avoid this.

I do know from experience that less than 10 over a limit of 55+ in Nevada is a non-moving violation. My fine was nowhere near as bad, something like $67 for nine over. This was in one of the depopulated counties, not Clark, so maybe they have some kind of surcharge there.

If it isn't a big ticket you probably didn't need a lawyer. Generally, just asking the prosecuting attorney (nicely!) for a guilty plea to a lesser offense will work. You may have to pay the same fine or even a higher fine, but it stays off your record. If he doesn't agree ask the judge for a continuance (if he asks why, say you need time to prepare a defense, which is the truth), then hire a lawyer.

The system of hiring a lawyer is part professional courtesy, part racket (not just in NV, everywhere). All the judges and prosecutors used to be be lawyers, so by favoring people who have counsel they're helping their profession out and providing a slight fringe benefit to others in the profession. (I understand lawyers who get tickets play the game too, hiring other lawyers if their own shop doesn't handle traffic cases.) For those ticketed, it's still a better outcome than mailing the ticket in.

There's nothing morally wrong with exercising your rights. Plea bargains happen all the time in criminal cases; very few people get the maximum penalty possible. A fine is still an incentive not to do it again, even if your record stays clean.

The system is based on incentives given to people to reduce the number of trials held. Trials generally cost far more than the face value of a traffic ticket. The process has become streamlined but it is based on historical precedent and study.

If the only options were to pay the full amount or go to trial, the system would become massively overburdened, forcing the justice system to throw out many tickets or run all the trials and incur massive losses.

I got my only large traffic ticket a few years back in Toronto, Canada. After recieving it, I read online that the system was overwhelmed and you had a very good chance of getting on a trial list and having it simply thrown out if you went to the office and declared your inention to go to trial. I did exactly that. What followed was a mandatory meeting with the prosecutor, who offered me progressively better incentives to plead guilty on the spot. I eventually settled for 20 percent of the face value of the ticket just so I did not have to come back. I think I did better than most who probably cave at the early offers of reduced or removed demerit points but still a hefty fine.

Here's the key: Lawyers fully know the system and are given better deals immediately. They will not cave at a lessor offer like many individuals will. Further, they are far more likely to hold out for a trial and use expense-incurring stall tactics, and the departments know this. They know that even completely holding out for a trial is still an okay option as the cop will often not show up (another cost reason - this is usually billed as overtime pay for the cop). That's if the case ever makes it to trial, which many tickets do not as the justice department must thin out the queue and simply throws some cases out.

Like almost anything, this is all simple economics at play.

Quote: pocketaces

Here's the key: Lawyers fully know the system and are given better deals immediately. They will not cave at a lessor offer like many individuals will. Further, they are far more likely to hold out for a trial and use expense-incurring stall tactics, and the departments know this.

That is pretty much it.

A letter to a creditor from a debtor's lawyer carries more weight than the exact same letter from the debtor himself.

Often the main advantage is that the lawyer knows where the court house is located. He knows how to get to the head of the line while others simply wait for their case to be called. He looks like a lawyer, acts like a lawyer and will be treated like a lawyer. So its often worth it to hire a lawyer for even a routine act that you yourself can accomplish.

A person can be so mentally impaired that he is legally unable to enter into a commercial contract, yet he might still have the mental capacity to make a will. You don't full mental capacity to make a will and you don't need a lawyer to make a will, but even someone of very modest means should go to a lawyer for a will.

Quote: 7outlineaway

The system of hiring a lawyer is part professional courtesy, part racket (not just in NV, everywhere). All the judges and prosecutors used to be be lawyers, so by favoring people who have counsel they're helping their profession out and providing a slight fringe benefit to others in the profession.

Ding, ding, ding!

I think we have the correct answer!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Ding, ding, ding!

I think we have the correct answer!

That was the kind of answer I was looking for too. I'm still going to try to confirm that.

The 'professional courtesy' idea, while a wee bit too far in the conspiracy realm of things, probably does has some effect in some instances. But a big thing that might refute that a bit is that a lot of the agents in many traffic courts aren't even lawyers. In many jurisdications, these agents are paralegals who have little in common with the judges and prosecutors that went to law school. In fact, they are very likely generally given little respect as a professional by their far more educated counterparts. But the high success rates of these agents are prevalent across these jurisdictions as well.

I really believe knowledge of the system and the best process to obtain a desired result is key. A paralegal or lawyer has it, joe schmo does not. Prosecutors are fully aware of this.

This information discrepency subject has actually been openly talked about in law circles. Many jurisdictions have attempted to remove the advantage a lawyer has in small claims court to some success, by turning them more into "people's courts" like on television. However in traffic court where technicalities, negotiation and playing the system is key, a lawyer or agent that knows the system intimately will always have an advantage.

Here's a detailed article that emphasizes the information discrepancy I speak of: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/can-a-lawyer-beat-your-traffic-ticket--1.aspx

Be glad you can do that in Nevada. California is much tougher when it comes to getting the points reduced for your violation, and much more expensive, attorney or not.

I just figure it's part of the cost of driving a car here in California. Doesn't matter how much you try to obey every traffic law here, there seem to be situations where it's next to impossible to follow the rules to the letter of the law. So if you drive a lot like I do then you're bound to get nailed for something sooner or later out here.

With 80% of the drivers exceeding the speed limit on the freeways here on a daily basis, I'd say the traffic laws should be more of a guideline than carved in stone. Otherwise, 80% of us are criminals in the eyes of the law, in terms of disobeying a traffic law.

I was surprised to hear about the fellow who received a citation for only 9 over. In Cali, you may generally exceed the posted speed limit up to 10 MPH before running the risk of being stopped and issued a citation. And then there is a 5mph variance, so they will generally knock off 5 mph from your clocked speed as a rule.

So, you might get away with 10 or 12mph over without any problems generally.

As far as Neveda, Glad to know that thanks, I'll watch it.

I realize traffic courts vary a great deal across the country. Some have prosecutors, some have just officers and judges (or magistrates). Realizing that, I will speak as to where I have practiced law. As a prosecutor (NOT in NV), I offer you this explanation:

I would rather deal with an attorney than an indidual representing himself or herself because it is more efficient. In traffic court, and throughout the system that is in place to handle traffic matters, the most inefficient part is people who try to represent themselves. They want prosecutors, judges, clerks, and baliffs to give them free legal advice. Most people all have the same basic questions: What can I do to avoid license points, avoid insurance increases, and pay lower fines? As a prosecutor, I am not allowed to answer any of those questions because it is conflict of interest, as I represent the government and cannot assist the opposing party (the person charged). Judges and clerks are under the same restriction. Bailiffs and law enforcement officers will sometimes give answers, but often they are wrong or someone misunderstands and later gets mad because they followed the officer's advice and things turned out worse than expected.It doesn't take officers long to learn to just tell people that they can't answer those questions either.
Sometimes a person will know what result they need (for instance, they need their charge reduced to 10mph over or less) but they still don't know what the prosecutor's policies are in regard to making that result happen. At that point, I end up having to explain about driving school or a obatining a written driving record from DMV, as per our policies.

It may seem like just having to tell a person that you can't answer their questions about insurance and license points or that they need to go to driving school won't take up a lot of time. And it doesn't for one person. But multiply that amount of time by nearly every single person who doesn't have a lawyer (and doesn't just pay the fine before court) and there is what takes up time. Toss in a few people each week who "just want to talk to the judge" or "just want to tell you what happened" because they don't understand how an adversarial trial sytem works, and hopefully you can begin to see why dealing with an attorney is much easier.

Attorneys can answer all the insurance, license, and fines questions. The local attorneys already know our traffic policies, so they can also tell the person that needs driving school to go to driving school. I can handle a routine traffic matter with an attorney literally in a matter of seconds.

As to some of the specific comments in this thread:

Quote: dlevinelaw

I know in Florida, where I live, it is simply a massive saving of judicial resources. Generally the ticket law firms can go before a judge (whom they all become acquainted with) with a massive amount of tickets- and aggregately settle them, saving the court time and money. I think there is a trade-off with settling these due to the increase in fines, though I have no idea how grand the trade-off actually is in practice.

Quote: pocketaces

The system is based on incentives given to people to reduce the number of trials held. Trials generally cost far more than the face value of a traffic ticket. The process has become streamlined but it is based on historical precedent and study.

If the only options were to pay the full amount or go to trial, the system would become massively overburdened, forcing the justice system to throw out many tickets or run all the trials and incur massive losses.

This is only partly true. No doubt prosecutors everywhere say that they plea bargain cases because they just don't have the resources to go to trial on all of them. For serious crimes, this is certainly the situation. But as to traffic cases for me, I believe it has almost no impact.
While it is true if every person charged with speeding wanted a trial, there would be an unbelievable backlog in traffic court. But this wouldn't bother the prosecution. First off, speeding trials, relative to other trials, take almost no time. It's the same questions every time. Anybody who can memorize those questions (or read them of a sheet of paper) could do it. It helps if you can catch people with inconsitencies when they testify, but the judge knows how to do that too if I don't. (A traffic trial is just the judge choosing to believe the officer or the defendant, really) Second, I have to be in court all day anyway. If 50 people want a trial and there is only time for 20, I don't care. That means 30 people have to come back another court date, miss another day of work, and all With no promise that their case will be reached on the next day either. If it happens that the case is continued so many times that the officer becomes unavailable then, yes, you win - your case is dismissed. But it doesn't really bother me that a speeding ticket gets dismissed because it's a year old and now the officer is gone so it's not able to be prosecuted. I can't say that about burglaries, armed robberies, and rape cases, so those are subject to plea bargain for the sake of not having a backlog in the system.
I realize that the article cited by pocketaces has a traffic lawyer saying that he prevails for his clients because the court is afraid of a backlog. I do not know this lawyer, but realize that he's giving an explanation that encourages people to hire him. He can't very well say "Well, I'm just getting the same deal everybody else will get if they just show up." Further, he's got a duty to represent his client as best he can. So if he threatens trial on someone, and the prosecutor calls his bluff, he'll either plead the case anyway (because that's best for his client) or he have a trial and risk convicting his client as charged. His client will get nailed and probably complain to the bar, and the attorney will have to explain to the bar (and possibly his malpractice insurance company) why guilty as charged was the best result he could get. On top of all that, no lawyer wants to have a hundred speeding trials either, especially for cases where he charges a flat fee in contemplation of the case being pled to a lesser charge.

Quote: Wizard

What makes that explanation hard to accept entirely is that if you call the phone number on the back of the ticket you go through an automated menu that lets to settle the matter for lesser amounts that stated on the ticket. So there is already a working process in place to reward bad drivers to not fight the ticket.

I agree that paying lesser amounts just for not contesting the ticket will reduce total numbers without lawyers getting involved. However, I know where I work the officers are responsible for filling out the fines for each ticket, because the ticket is just a form used for all different offenses and the standard fines obviously vary depending on the offense charged. Sometimes officers write down the wrong thing out of sincere error, although some seem to just put the maximum down and so when people call or mail in their fines they think they got some sort of a break. I'm not saying this is what happened to the Wizard, but it is certainly possible.

Quote: 7outlineaway

The system of hiring a lawyer is part professional courtesy, part racket (not just in NV, everywhere). All the judges and prosecutors used to be be lawyers, so by favoring people who have counsel they're helping their profession out and providing a slight fringe benefit to others in the profession.

Not really. Of course, I realize a prosecutor saying "not really" in response to this doesn't carry a whole lot of credibility if one is already skeptical enough to believe this reason. And not to nit pick but judges and prosecutors ARE lawyers (not "used to be lawyers"); just a different kind of lawyer. There are enough people that don't want to "waste" time with the court system that they will hire a lawyer regardless of what policies or procedures are in place. As I wrote earlier, I PREFER dealing with attorneys, but I don't have to make any extra effort to drum up business for traffic lawyers. They write letters and advertise enough that they will be fine on their own.

Quote: 7outlineaway

(I understand lawyers who get tickets play the game too, hiring other lawyers if their own shop doesn't handle traffic cases.)

Yes, because as I pointed out earlier, some people will hire attorneys just so they don't have to deal with the traffic court system. Non-traffic lawyers are the type of people I'm talking about. If I am an estate attorney who bills at $300 an hour, why would I spend an hour (or more) going to traffic court to get my ticket reduced or dismissed when I can pay $80 to a traffic lawyer to do it for me?

Hope this somewhat helps answer the original question.

Those were some outstanding comments, EnvyBonus, thanks! I just wrote about my experience with this ticket so far at my blog.' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>https://wizardofodds.com/news/Speeding-Ticket----part-1.html]blog.

I can't speak for Nevada, but I can for Missouri. I don't know if it's the same, but it's a different angle than others have mentioned.

I recently received two speeding tickets, each about 6 months apart. The first was in the City of St. Louis. I called around and found a lawyer for $35. He notifies the court that he's the lawyer for the case, and then gets the case extended. After that, he talks to the prosecuter, by phone or in person, and gets the ticket changed to a non-moving violation (excessive vehicular noise, in my case). I pay more in fees (I think I paid $170), but there are no points on my record and my insurance isn't notified.

The second was in a city in St. Louis County. I called the same lawyer and paid the same fee. He did the same extension with them. The lawyer tells his clients to call every couple of weeks if nothing has been sent in the mail. I kept calling him and getting the same response: "I'm waiting on the prosecuter to get back with me. He says they're very busy." After several months, I received a letter from the lawyer that stated the city dropped all charges - no fines to pay.

Essentially, the lawyer is there to work your ticket to a non-moving violation. Could you do this on your own? I'm not sure. However, the total cost (lawyer and higher fee) is still less than the cost of the original ticket and the higher insurance costs.

In Mexico it's a lot simpler. Assuming you do not pay off the traffic cop (more on that on request), you simply go to any bank and pay the fine. Traffic citations are relatively low. A ticket for parking at a no-parking zone costs about $25, but you get as much as 50% off if you pay within five days. I don't know if the infractions can be contested or how'd one go about it.

There are two big exceptions: getting caught drunk at a checkpoint, which carries a heavier fine plus up to 36 hours in jail; and driving a car when it's not allowed to circulate (once per week and one weekend per month). That gets the car impounded, carries a fine of abut $150, plus towing and impound fees. But all cops will take a bribe for that one (more on that on request)

I have had some good comments on this topic come to me directly by e-mail. I'm copying and pasting them below. I think the best is the second one, from Dan L..

--------------------------------------------------------------

From Justin J.:

I am a fan of both your site and gambling analysis. I read your posting on your recent speeding ticket and thought I'd forward you what I know. I am not a lawyer, so please take this with a grain of salt.



I live in Missouri and we have had similar services called the Traffic Law Center for the past twenty years or so. I had not heard of another state having organizations like this until I read your post. I have used them a couple of times. I took the opportunity to talk with a friendly lawyer who worked there and he filled me in on how the process works.



Places like TLC build relationships with the prosecuting attorneys in all of the local municipalities in the St. Louis area. TLC charges a service fee ($75 here), then "negotiates" an out of court settlement with the prosecuting attorney on your behalf. Typically they reduce the charge to a non-moving violation (missing tail light, muffler violation, etc.) and set the fine to roughly 1.5 to 2 times what you would have paid for the ticket. This fine goes up on a sliding scale depending on your traffic history and the severity of the original violation. They will not negotiate if your driving record is too poor or if the charge is too severe.



In this arrangement, the municipality is paid more than what they would have originally collected without having to hear the case in court. This is their motivation for accepting this arrangement. The traffic law firm of course earns their service fee for a simple fax and phone call. You pay much more than you would have by pleading guilty, but you have no points on your record or potential increase in your insurance rates.



I actually tried to do this myself in New Jersey (where there isn't a TLC-type organization). I was told only other lawyers may speak to the prosecuting attorney before the court date. At court, I joined a line to see the prosecutor before my case was called. Lawyers were able to jump in front of the rest of us in line at any time. When I finally did reach his office, the prosecutor gave me about 15 seconds to explain (I actually had a good case), cut me off and kindly "offered" to drop my speeding offense from 15mph over to 10 over (take it or leave it). I still had to pay court costs on top of that. While I still believed I was not guilty, it would have cost me much more in lost salary and patience to sit in the courtroom all day for my audience with the judge. I naturally accepted his offer as most everyone else does. This experience showed me that the whole process is protected within the "brotherhood of lawyers", never to be cracked by the common man. It also illustrated the value of traffic law centers to me as everything is taken care of without me needing to miss work or deal directly with the court system.



I am sure the arrangement in Vegas is very similar, but I look forward to reading part 2 to see how everything turns out. Good luck in your quest!

Cheers,

Justin J.

---------------------------------------------------

From Dan L.:

Mike,

Dan L. here. I read your depiction/experience of the "Las Vegas speed trap" racket, and I have a bit of experience with it, too.

1. Firstly, I got nailed for a few (FOUR) tickets within a year - for otherwise reasonable and safe driving - in "wide thoroughfare" zones that were suddenly as 25 or 35mph zones - as abruptly connected to equally-wide 45 MPH-plus boulevards.

2. My business attorneys (at Marquis and Auerbach) mentioned "as an aside" that they do convert - as a courtesy - any "wrongful moving violations" to parking tickets for their clients (of which Steve and I are two) for $50 per offense with no points, - via their legal assistants, and as a [standard] service for their Las Vegas-based clients. All as a service for their clients as a part of life in this town. Indeed, MANY law firms do so, now to very openly, and as advertised to shameful proportions.

3. There is an open acceptance of this town being a "speed trap" town, where the locals pay an invisible but considerable county tax through tricky and nefarious police ticketing schemes. When I lived in New York, there was also a police "Internal Affairs" crackdown on revenue-generating schemes within the by the NYPD; however, there was NOT a "citizen's out" by converting wrongful moving violations to parking tickets, so New York City had an unavoidable and horrendous insurance premium tax as a result, and a crack-down occurred on this abuse. In Las Vegas, you still pay the original fine or "tax" - but without any massive car insurance premiums - through the "no point" conversions to innocuous parking tickets.

4. There ARE some stipulations to our LV racket:

a) The offense must NOT be a part of a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident occurrence;

b) It cannot involve an intoxication-driving based citation (but that TOO can be handled or converted for an additional $500-$1,000 in surplus fees, - but also conditional on the stipulation of provable substance abuse treatment);

c) It cannot involve any openly reckless driving situation, where speed limits where exceeded by more than 40 MPH (let's say being caught at 90 MPH on Flamingo Road at any time of the night), or intentionally running red lights at full speed. Any offense that is gravely absurd or ridiculous is excluded from the "citizen's out" parking ticket conversion.

If you safely drove 45 - 50mph on a wide thoroughfare with little traffic that Clark County just happened to declare for some [income-generating] reason to be a 25 or 35 zone out of the blue - you will get:

a) ticket to pay, AND

b) and a "citizen's out" on the violation points, BECAUSE

c) you actually did "arguably" drive safely and reasonably - BUT NOT METICULOUSLY


And as a result, you will:

a) Support the Police force of Clark County,

b) Subsidize the attorneys and legal assistants of Las Vegas, AND

c) not be punish on your insurance rates - if you just play along (or drive at 25mph on a wide open thoroughfare with no traffic!!)

Believe me, the cops and public defenders in this town cannot shake down a single cent for the city or county every time they arrest some broke meth addict, car thief or burglar, - and if they did, that would be bribery, anyway.

The trivial moving violation offenses of the middle class and the wealthy help pay for the processing of indigent criminals, because they cannot be taxed, and because our cops can't and don't steal their drug money. If they did, Mexico would extend to Canada, - as politically incorrect as that comment is.

Personally, I like the arrangement. Not only am I completely accident free as a fine driver, I have only two points on my record, in stead of a wrongful nine. My car insurance rates are very low as the truly safe driver that I am - and I LIKE it like that!

Great Regards,

Dan.


Mike...that how it works in this town.


---------------------------------

From Thomas B.:

I do like your site, but you were curious about getting a speeding ticket fine reduced and the legalities of it. I don't know about the legalities, especially in Nevada.



I got a speeding ticket in Idaho, and in Idaho if you pay twice the normal fine, they won't tell your insurance company so your rates won't go up. Seemed kind of "cheesy" to me, like what I'd expect in Mexico. Something about posting a bond.



While your talking to your lawyer maybe you could ask him about it or other "strange ticket reduction strategies" used in other states.



Just a comment to enrich Part II of your blog.



No need to reply



-----------------------------------------

From Mike:

There are two possibilities I can think of to explain Ticket Whackers. The first is that the company IS the judge, Nevada being as corrupt as it is, and the money you pay goes directly into the pockets of the authorities instead of the state or city coffers, and in exchange for this they will gladly reduce the charges.



The other possibility is that they are a criminal law firm which bullies the courts by threatening to overwhelm them. There was an old criminal defense attorney in Connecticut who used to do that. If you had any kind of arrest or violation you came to see him, even if you had no money he'd take care of you. What he did was use your petty violation as a weapon- if the prosecutor didn't give him the pleas he wanted, he'd fill up the court schedule with Not Guilty pleas for jaywalking and public drunkenness. It was a good system in that if you didn't commit a felony, all you got was a little fine and it saved everyone time and money. In a place with excessive and Draconian traffic violations, a law firm or a coordinated effort by lawyers can do the same thing by demanding a jury trial for each one, thus forcing the courts to be reasonable.

I definitely once was offered a change to a "non-moving" in Virginia that was going to be about 50% more but no points. This was after I appealed and the prosecutor just didnt want to deal with it.

What he didnt know was I had it in for the traffic cop, who simply was rude as hell for no good reason. I was going to the mat with that guy! I turned down the offer. I wound up eventually having to only pay court costs anyway, being my own lawyer. Having a good driving record was probably my ace in the hole, but the cop made some mistakes, too, he wasnt too smart and got tripped up in his "account" of what happened.

One interesting aspect was they pretty much admitted the first "trial" in traffic court was kangaroo court and didnt count.

Lost time from work spending several separate days in court was substantial.

GO TO VEGASTICKETMASTERS.COM 702-241-0078
I called several of those traffic ticket attorneys and always got the secretary, this guy answers his phone 24/7. I got my first tickets dismissed and subsequently went back again when some jerk Henderson cop gave me another. I have referred several of my friends and they have been happy too with this attorney.