Simply for your case you should of plead no contest and took the plea.
You would have got no points and paid the minimal fine. your lawyer took the nothing or double route on the a small technicality of how the law was worded and not on the merit of the strength of your defense or evidence presented. A big mistake that you pay for not him.

If you fight it you should have fought it yourself.
here are some simple points on going to court for traffic infraction cases.

1. you would never get a lawyer unless you don’t want to appear as the lawyer could substitute your presence on your behalf.

2. You have three choices, not guilty, guilty and Nolo contendere.

3. The period between arraignment and entering a plea is the only time you can bargain to suspend, and the court would bargain if they think you have a chance to have this tied up in court. The court wants to save time as well for time is money loss for them. but if your case is a slam dunk against you don’t expect any bargain at all, or if you already lost the point of giving a bargain would be throwing money away in the trash to them.

4. If you waive your right to a trial and plead guilty they take saving courts time as consideration and give you the minimal fine and possible a bargain.

5. If you fight it in court you will be fined the maximum fine possible to recovery cost and time of the court. you are not getting around that, this is the gamble you take. Most times this is a double or nothing.
If you have the choice for a six-man jury always take that, and not just the judge. the judge will always favor the city interest of time and cost.

6. Never let the cross-examiner make a statement about your character or any statement which is impossible to be known as fact. This is hearsay at minimal and can even be slander. Always object and state that such statement has no merit for it is said with no supportive evidence nor fact.

If he says that you have money to lose in which makes your testimony not credible just reply

” To say at the least my testimony is not valid is purely from hearsay of my own character for which you have no knowledge of unless you want to present any character witness; at that, I also would object on that count as well due to not declaring such witnesses in discovery and would move to postpone to examine the new evidence for preparation of cross-examination. ”

The statement would be redacted at that point.

7. Always try to get the officer to state under oath something different than what’s in the case notes, you may not think that is important but it clearly states his character. Also, on your cross, you will ask if he read his notes before the trial started. If he did you can say

“Even after twenty minutes, you can’t even remember the details in your own notes what is there to say you remember the correct details as you eventually wrote the notes after the citation? it seems you have an issue with your memory even with important details you gleaned only moments ago. ”

It will be objected for sure but simply explain that his lack of attention to detail as a police officer even under oath shows the lack of character which may elude to his testimony to be unreliable. The judge should say it will be noted but to not go any further on that line of questioning or it will be redacted.

http://www.moveoveramerica.com/

If it is a good law, after seven years, most of people in Illinois should know and other states should follow. But non of them is true.

In my opinion, The law was not advertised enough to let people know and the penalty is harsh for a first time offender (especially for out of state drivers).

When your friend plead guilty and got the fine, did the judge enter a conviction? Or did she get supervision? It’s important because a conviction goes on her record, which may count toward a suspension of her license.

Also, what state is your friend’s license issued in? And do you know if they have some sort of agreement with Illinois regarding driving records?

Good luck.

On June 17, 2007 I was arrested for violating an unknown traffic law, I.V.C. 625 ILCS 5/11-907(c). On October 23, 2007 I was acquitted, but it was not easy. What (Illinois only) traffic offense carries a much more severe penalty than drunk driving? Illinois politicians call it “Scott’s Law.” Never heard of it? Neither has anyone else — it’s a state-police secret. The current edition (December 2006) of Illinois’s Rules of the Road published by the Secretary of State makes no mention of “Scott’s Law” except to say on page 70 that “a driver should, when safe to do so, move into a lane not adjacent to the emergency vehicle ….” This seven-year-old law, signed by our criminal governor, Lyin’ Ryan, requires a mandatory license suspension for one violation, yet it is not included in the list of 22 reason for suspension in Chapter 6 of Illinois’s Rules of the Road. In addition to a mandatory suspension, a conviction can result in a $10,000 fine, much higher than drunk driving. This law also requires a mandatory (Bloomington) court appearance; you cannot hire a lawyer to take your place in court, and you cannot plead guilty to avoid a personal appearance. I live four hours away, but my appearance would be required even if I lived in Alaska.

What terrible thing did I do to cause the Illinois State Police to arrest me? On Sunday, June 17th I was driving from Rockford to Pittsburgh on Interstates 39, 74 & 70. Shortly after 3:00 a.m., I approached flashing lights on both sides of the southbound lanes of I-39, eleven miles north of Bloomington. I remained in the right lane when I passed two state police cars parked behind a third vehicle on the left shoulder. A few seconds later I passed two other state police cars parked behind another third vehicle on the broader right shoulder. When I passed the second cluster of vehicles, I (a) slowed to 35 mph, (b) turned on my left lane-change signal, and (c) straddled the center line because (i) I did not want to block any vehicle pulling out from the left shoulder, (ii) I did not want to pass close to the cluster of vehicles on the broader right shoulder, and (iii) I did not want to hit any debris on the road. Four police cars and two other vehicles on the shoulders indicated there may have been a collision. The two clusters of vehicles were approximately 150 yards apart although, while approaching in the dark, the six cars appeared to be adjacent to each other.

Approximately ten minutes later, one of the four police cars speeding at about 120 mph caught up to me to (1) take $75 cash for a bond, (2) issue complaint 4799740 for “Scott’s Law” and (3) issue warning 5273716 for improper lane usage. At the time I thought, and I still think, I did the safest thing possible under the circumstances by (a) slowing to 35 mph, (b) turning on my left lane-change signal, and (c) straddling the center line.

Why were those six cars parked back there? He would not tell me. There was no collision: no debris on the road. Two cars stopped for speeding at the same location: impossible because there were virtually no cars on the road at 3:00 a.m. Sunday — only an occasional 18-wheel truck.

Four police cars and two other vehicles, probably also police cars, on the shoulders at the same place — what does that indicate to you? A scam — a police trap. The state policeman refused to even file a police report, thus giving himself the opportunity to change his story in court, i.e., lie under oath.

There is no such “Scott’s Law” in any of the other 49 states. In Illinois during the seven years this law has been in effect, over 20,000 tickets have been issued by the Illinois State Police, and no tickets have been issued by other police agencies except where there has been a genuine emergency. To an ordinary driver, a police car writing a speeding ticket on the broad right shoulder of an Interstate Highway is not considered an emergency any more than your car parked in the same place would be, yet one is included and the other is not included in the “Scott’s Law” statute.

On October 23rd I drove to Bloomington for my personal court appearance, but the state cop did not show up. I had to wait an hour in the courtroom while the government tried to find the offending policeman. When the judge finally called my case, the female assistant state’s attorney unbelievably tried to force me to make still another trip to the Bloomington courthouse because she did not have her witness. The judge denied her motion to continue, and he then dismissed the “Scott’s Law” case against me.

If it happened to me, it can happen to you. Those same six cars could be out there in the dark tonight. Once in a blue moon we catch a rogue state cop and put him in prison. We need to catch more of them.
-30-

Judge: Too bad you didn’t request those records before the trial and now it is too late because we are at trial. The unprepared attorney may call as many interested witnesses as he wishes and I will give that due consideration against the word of my buddy po po, hier. In both the liability and penalty phases. So, how far are you willing to let this go?

I like the visual! I’m not sure it would have gone exactly like that, but that hits all the major points.

I can’t tell from Mark’s telling of the story whether the cop was asked whether there was someone else in the car. If he was and he said no, then yeah, point to her and ask him if he recognizes her. If he says no, then you have to move on and call her to testify.

I don’t think he would have said anything other than police car, though.

That’s his memory and he’s sticking to it.

Here’s the way it should have worked out (in my imagination):

As soon as the cop lied about what happened, my lawyer would have known exactly what to do on cross-exam.

Lawyer: Are you sure it was a police car that was pulled over?

Cop: Yes.

Lawyer: Do you recall that there was another passenger in the defendant’s car?

Cop: No, I don’t recall.

Lawyer: You don’t recall that there was a woman in the car?

Cop: Not really. I pull over a lot of cars.

Lawyer: Let me try and jog your memory. That lady sitting in the gallery (points to wife)

My wife would have been there. She wouldn’t have missed something like me on trial. That’s just us, but in this case it would have helped.

Cop: Maybe she was. I don’t exactly recall.

Prosecutor: Excuse me, is this going anywhere?

Judge: Get to the point, please.

Lawyer: Well, your honor, that woman, who was with the defendant at the time is ready to corroborate the story of my client that this officer at the time told them both that they had passed a work truck, not a police car. It gets to the reliability of this witness’s recollection.

Judge: OK, but finish it up.

Lawyer: (Looking to cop) So, that woman is ready to testify that you plainly said you pulled them over for passing a working truck. So, did you pull them over for passing a work truck, or a police car?

At this point, the officer could not possibly be looking cool because if he answers “truck,” he has undermined his credibility. If he answers “police car,” he risks perjuring himself.

The most likely answer: “I’ve told you, it was a police car.”

Lawyer: So, this would be a highway patrolman, like yourself, ticketing people on the expressway.

Cop: Yes.

Lawyer: One of your colleagues.

Cop: I suppose, yea.

Lawyer: Do you recall which one?

Prosecutor: Your honor, where is this going?

Judge: Counsel?

Lawyer: Your honor, may I approach the bench?

Lawyer and prosecutor approach the bench.

Lawyer: Your honor, if a colleague of this officer was in that vicinity at the time of this incident, it seems unlikely that he wouldn’t know who it was. In any case, there would be a record of this other officer in that location at that time in the files. But there won’t be any such record because my client is certain that he didn’t pass a police car, and he didn’t pass a work truck. So, how far are you willing to let this go?

At this point, I can’t see a judge or prosecutor taking chance on risking the career of a traffic cop over something like this. They would know that if they get a conviction, this lawyer could easily get the wife’s affidavit and police records proving that there was no police car in that area on official duty, which opens up perjury charges against the officer, not to mention having the judgment overturned on appeal because the officer’s credibility as a witness was undermined.

Anyway, that’s what a good lawyer would have done. Very Perry Mason.

The underlying question, though, is how much did you pay this lawyer? You’re not going to get a defense like that from a $400 lawyer.

I do have a comment though too. I agree with your earlier posting – if running over people is bad, it’s bad period. I don’t need an extra law to tell me not to run over people next a vehicle with a flashing light on it.

The other weird point about this law is that it creates something like a conflict of interest. I mean here the state troopers are responsble for enforcing a law where one of their own was killed in the line of duty which created the law in the first place. So by god they are gonna teach all those idiots a lesson who dare pass by – carefully but not necessarily switching lanes.

I passed a state trooper with lights on who was sitting behind a stalled tour bus. Two pedestrians were visible on the left side of the bus which was fully off the road. No other pedestrians were present on the road.

When the cop pulled me over I was stunned. I figured it was one of those “helper” stops where he saw something sticking out of my door and wanted to let me know. Right away he asked for the license. I asked if there was a problem. He seemed pretty miffed at me and asked me why I hadn’t moved left. I actually couldn’t speak because I just couldn’t believe he thought I did something wrong.

I didn’t know it was a law, but of course we all know ignorance is no excuse. I actually got very angry when he further said I was speeding at 79 (which I wasn’t but I was doing 72) From the very beginning though his whole demeanor was so accusatory and holier than though. It was like I had just slugged his little brother and how could I be so awful.

I kind of got the impression that if I had said I didn’t know it was a law (rather than a courtesy) to pull left he’d get even more pissed at me.

On top of this ticket though he got me for speeding. The thing is there were at least 4 cars who passed him all at the same time. I just happened to be the one who didn’t move left. Now think about that too. All these cars in a pack moving at 65 or 70 mph and they all have to move left when there is no real need or danger. Why have four cars all traveling at slightly different speeds some in the process or near process of passing others move left at the sight of flashing lights when it’s clear there is no crash, no pedestrians on the road and no serious safety problem on the shoulder. Tell me its safer for all these cars to move left than to stay in the same lane and pass by without lots of steering and speed adjustments.

I don’t want to seem like I’m whining either. I would admit the wrong I guess if the guy wasn’t such an ass about it.

One other thing, I know cops are taught to take control of the situation in order not to get killed when they truly are dealing with bad, bad people. But this guy was a few notches over that “take control” line.

And it is a stupid law nevertheless.

Thanks for posting. At least I don’t suffer alone.

I hope you will delve a little deeper into the nature of police testimony and its ever-changing nature in order to serve the “ends” of justice. I think you will find it interesting.

Consider this: Whenver there is a factual conflict between a person accused of wrong doing and cop, who will be believed and why? It’s a stacked deck for a reason. In large measure, the public realizes somewhere deep down that this is the case, but it’s basically fine with them as they would prefer to stick the cops for the general benefit of smacking the bad guys. The implications, however, when it’s your butt on the lines, are seldom recognized.

SHG

But then, maybe he wasn’t going for that angle at all.

Generally, witnesses are good only if they support your story.

Hmm…I suppose it would have helped if we both testified. Would the two of us be more credible than the cop?

Maybe my lawyer could have asked the cop how many people were in the car with me or something, and if he said it was just me, we’d have a couple of problems with his testimony we could talk about.