Ohio Speeding Ticket with No Signature?

[nas78605]

I received a speeding ticket in broadview heights, Ohio. It says that I have a mandatory court appearance since it alleges was going over 20 mph. But I never signed the ticket when I received it from the officer. Does that make the ticket invalid?

[zap]

No.

If he asked and you refused to sign, he could have arrested you on the spot and forced you to post bond.

[Crimebytes2]

I really, really wanna say something but, I better not. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/6.gif

*shakingherhead*

[nas78605]

The officer never asked me to sign the ticket.

[Sipowicz]

Not being from the area, but recalling similar discussions in the past, signature or not is irrelevant. It's still a valid ticket. If he forgot to tell you to sign, shame on him, but that doesn't mean you didn't break the law.

I've never understood the whole signing thing. Here in MN, the ticket doesn't even have a place to sign. No signature req'd here. Don't resolve the ticket? We'll just suspend your license. Out of state license? Nice try; we work quite well with the majority of the states of the Union. Chances are your home state is one of them. We just call your DMV/DLS (or whatever your state calls the driving division) and tell them the scoop, and they suspend your license.

[Crimebytes2]

The officer never asked me to sign the ticket.
If the officer did not ask you to sign the ticket then most likely a signature was not required; however, this does not invalidate the ticket. You are still responsible for appearing in court. If you believe you were not speeding then by all means declare your innocence. If, on the other hand, you were speeding then declare your guilt, pay the fine, and consider it a lesson learned. After all, the primary goal of traffic enforcement is to produce voluntary compliance with traffic laws. You know, there is probably no more misunderstood law enforcement duty than traffic enforcement.

I've never understood the whole signing thing. Here in MN, the ticket doesn't even have a place to sign. No signature req'd here.


Not the case in Iowa. A person served with a notice to appear before a court at a certain time and place to answer to charges alleging a violation of an ordinance or a person who signs a written promise to appear before a court at a certain time or place and who fails to so appear without good cause shown is guilty of a misdemeanor (Ord. 4023 § 11, 1973).

[nas78605]

The only reason I dont want to go to court is because its a 4 hour drive, I dont mind paying the fine, I wish there was some way to resolve this issue without me going to court.

[Crimebytes2]

The only reason I dont want to go to court is because its a 4 hour drive, I dont mind paying the fine, I wish there was some way to resolve this issue without me going to court.
If you do not have a problem paying the fine, why did you ask if the ticket was valid with no signature? It sounded more like you were trying to get out of the ticket; rather than trying to get out of going to court.

My advice? Pack a lunch and enjoy the drive. http://bestsmileys.com/cars/18.gif

[nas78605]

If you do not have a problem paying the fine, why did you ask if the ticket was valid with no signature? It sounded more like you were trying to get out of the ticket; rather than trying to get out of going to court.

My advice? Pack a lunch and enjoy the drive. http://bestsmileys.com/cars/18.gif

I asked that so maybe I dont have to go to court because the ticket might not be valid..

Is it possible to declare trial by declaration for my case? or someway I dont have to go to court and admit my guilt? Cause honestly, it will cost me the same to take a day off work and drive up and back as compared to hiring a lawyer there and fighting the ticket.. i'd rather just admit my guilt some other way and save the money and just pay any fine..

[zap]

I asked that so maybe I dont have to go to court because the ticket might not be valid..

Is it possible to declare trial by declaration for my case? or someway I dont have to go to court and admit my guilt? Cause honestly, it will cost me the same to take a day off work and drive up and back as compared to hiring a lawyer there and fighting the ticket.. i'd rather just admit my guilt some other way and save the money and just pay any fine..

You can call the court listed on the information you were given, but most likely if the Officer marked mandatory appearance....then mandatory means just that.

Look at it this way...did you do what you are cited for doing? If so, take your lumps. We dont make the laws...we just enforce them.

[nas78605]

Well I just hired a lawyer... we'll see what happens..

[JediMaster]

Well I just hired a lawyer... we'll see what happens..

A lawyer for a speeding ticket? How much did that cost you. Seems paying the ticket would be cheaper than the amount you will spend on lawyer fees and driving to court multiple times.

[Crimebytes2]

Well I just hired a lawyer... we'll see what happens..
*shakesherheadandrollshereyes*

[zap]

*shakesherheadandrollshereyes*

Agreed.....

[nas78605]

I got the ticket thrown out completely.. my lawyer knew the prosecutor and said it was not a problem.. it turned out to be cheaper (with no points on my license) than me driving for total of 8 hours back and forth, missing a day of work, and cost of ticket plus court costs..

[Sipowicz]

Congratulations. Just realize this is not the norm for the process of procedure. I'd look at it as if you got lucky. Don't let this give you a false sense of security, lest it comes back and bites you in the arse.

[nas78605]

Agreed.....

I dont know why u feel that way... but you have to look at it from my perspective... the law about mandatory court appearance is stupid especially if you live far away.. i tried to get trial by declaration.. they wouldnt allow that.. i had no other choice but to hire a lawyer.. it was cheaper and i got the ticket thrown out.. anyone would do the same thing.. i said i was willing to just pay the ticket and be on my way without having a mandatory court appearance.. now if i got the ticket close to where i live.. i dont mind driving to court..

[zap]

I dont know why u feel that way...

I told you. Because that does not invalidate a ticket. Throwing good money after bad is not a winning solution.


but you have to look at it from my perspective... the law about mandatory court appearance is stupid especially if you live far away..

I disagree. Where you live is of no concern. YOU know where you live...I don't. If you don't want to have to go to court in a distant county, don't drive so fast (or commit other violations) there. This was under YOUR control, not the Officer's.

i tried to get trial by declaration.. they wouldnt allow that.. i had no other choice but to hire a lawyer..

Yes...you did


it was cheaper and i got the ticket thrown out.. anyone would do the same thing..

No, not everyone would...most would accept responsibility for their actions. I am not saying you are shirking said responsibility, however, it might not have been cheaper. You just might not realize how cheap it would have been by not going to court. That might be why the judge chose to dismiss the ticket...because you are already paying for the attorney in the issue.

i said i was willing to just pay the ticket and be on my way without having a mandatory court appearance.. now if i got the ticket close to where i live.. i dont mind driving to court..


Then I might suggest you obey the law when you are farther away from home than you are willing to drive back for court.

...and have a nice day.

[Crimebytes2]

I got the ticket thrown out completely.. my lawyer knew the prosecutor and said it was not a problem.. it turned out to be cheaper (with no points on my license) than me driving for total of 8 hours back and forth, missing a day of work, and cost of ticket plus court costs..
Congratulations! You achieved what you so desired simply by not following the rules. I think this is defined as beating the system. You must be so proud.

[phooey182]

Congratulations! You achieved what you so desired simply by not following the rules. I think this is defined as beating the system. You must be so proud.

Beat the system? this person was accused of a crime, hired a lawyer, and resolved the issue. How is that beating the system? I thought that was using the system. Innocent until proven guilty.

[arson571]

Beat the system?...How is that beating the system? I thought that was using the system. Innocent until proven guilty.

You only don't get it if you honestly think that 'legal' and 'moral' innocence is the same thing. The difference is that moral innocence is attached to honesty, integrity, and character. 'The system' is there to protect people from false accusations. Turn it around. If one is falsly convicted (legally guilty) but this is discovered, it is 'morally correct' to reverse the judgment.

Moral law and moral justice transcends 'legal' judgments of humankind.

[nas78605]

The problem is the system is not perfect.. i have been to mandatory court appearance twice in the past and both time i had to wait 2 hours to say "I'm guilty" for 1 second and pay the fine and leave.. whats the point of mandatory court appearance? The judge gave me the same fine that was written on a piece of paper that the police officers hands out when you dont have a mandatory court appearance..

[Crimebytes2]

The problem is the system is not perfect.. i have been to mandatory court appearance twice in the past and both time i had to wait 2 hours to say "I'm guilty" for 1 second and pay the fine and leave.. whats the point of mandatory court appearance? The judge gave me the same fine that was written on a piece of paper that the police officers hands out when you dont have a mandatory court appearance..
It is obvious you have learned nothing since you are constantly having to appear in court. I will say it again... you have freedom of choice (read to break or not break the law); not freedom of consequence (self explanatory).

[nas78605]

It is obvious you have learned nothing since you are constantly having to appear in court. I will say it again... you have freedom of choice (read to break or not break the law); not freedom of consequence (self explanatory).

I totally agree with what you are saying.. you have freedom of choice and not freedom of consequence... all i was trying to say it is a waste of tax payer money for me to appear in court for a minor misdemeanor just to say i am guilty and pay a fine when a police officer can just hand you the ticket and tell you what the fine is..

[Crimebytes2]

I totally agree with what you are saying.. you have freedom of choice and not freedom of consequence... all i was trying to say it is a waste of tax payer money for me to appear in court for a minor misdemeanor just to say i am guilty and pay a fine when a police officer can just hand you the ticket and tell you what the fine is..
This would have been nice. In fact, many departments have PDA's equipped with printers, magnetic strip readers, and wireless modems that can create electronic citations (aka e-cites). They even have software that can automatically calculate fees/fines. However, this was not the case where you were cited. I think zap said it best...

If you don't want to have to go to court in a distant county, don't drive so fast (or commit other violations) there. This was under YOUR control, not the Officer's.
IMO, instead of doing the right thing (taking responsibility), you took the easy way out (beating the system)... plain and simple. Speaking for myself, had this happened to me, I would have made the four hour drive but, that's just me. I think it's safe to say that we are never going to agree on this one so, let's just agree to disagree. Fair enough?

[JediMaster]

Beat the system? this person was accused of a crime, hired a lawyer, and resolved the issue. How is that beating the system? I thought that was using the system. Innocent until proven guilty.

The person hired a lawyer and didn't even show up in court or have the officer show up in court. That is not a case of innocent until proven guilty, he wasn't proven either way. He got out of a citation by simply hiring a lawyer that knows the prosecuting attorney.

Down here we had a case where an suspect in a crime hired the county commissioner as her defense attorney. The prosecuting attorney then decided not to prosecute for fear if he lost that she would then sue the county and he would lose his job due to the county commissioner's power. Innocent until proven guilty or beating the system? I say the latter.


In regards to the mandatory appearance box, many officers check that out of habit. A simple speeding ticket for the state code is generally a payout citation. I've never seen it mandatory unless it's the subjects 3rd in 12 months or if they were going 25 MPH over. Most likely that could have been resolved with a phone call to the clerk asking if it should be a mandatory appearance and then if not a payout over the phone.

[phooey182]

I'm a little surprised at what I'm hearing here. Usually you guys (even though we disagree) are always about the law.

You only don't get it if you honestly think that 'legal' and 'moral' innocence is the same thing. The difference is that moral innocence is attached to honesty, integrity, and character. 'The system' is there to protect people from false accusations. Turn it around. If one is falsly convicted (legally guilty) but this is discovered, it is 'morally correct' to reverse the judgment.

'Moral' innocence? Since when did traffic tickets have anything to do with morality? Can we even argue morality in court? no. And I think what he did WAS moral. He stood up for himself and followed a proper avenue for resolution. He didn't want to drive 4 hours, so he found a legal alternative that was to his benefit. There's nothing immoral about playing by the rules. And he did suffer for his alleged crime. He is out time and money.



The person hired a lawyer and didn't even show up in court or have the officer show up in court. That is not a case of innocent until proven guilty, he wasn't proven either way. He got out of a citation by simply hiring a lawyer that knows the prosecuting attorney.

Why show up in court if you hire a lawyer? The lawyer is there on your behalf. It's a minor traffic thing, not a felony. Here in CA, you can do a trial by mail. So what's wrong with letting the lawyer do the work?

I don't know exactly what the lawyer did, but if the prosecutor dropped the ticket because they were friends, your ire should be directed at the prosecutor.

And it IS a case of innocent until proven guilty. Every case is a case of innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor has to PROVE this guy deserves the ticket. Even in traffic court.

Bottom line, this guy used all legal resources available to him. And he came out ahead. But you still chastise him anyway. According to the law, right now, he is innocent of the crime for which he was accused.

[arson571]

I was pointing out Phooey, you and CB2 are addressing different types of innocence/guilt. And, YOU are the one that believes we are all about the law (I think you mean 'legalistic'). You are wrong.

If an officer gets away with excessive force, not being held accountable doesn't make him/her innocent; except 'legally'. I still don't condone it, legal or not. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is a 'presumption' in the law; not an a priori fact.

To the original poster, congrats. You broke the law and got away with it. BTW, I paid my last speeding ticket because I was speeding.

[zap]

BTW, I paid my last speeding ticket because I was speeding.


--as did I, however, the one before that I wasn't speeding to my knowledge (hidden sign) and I went to court and STILL paid.

[Crimebytes2]

To the original poster, congrats. You broke the law and got away with it. BTW, I paid my last speeding ticket because I was speeding.
This has been my point all along. If the OP was speeding, he was obligated to pay the consequences (I know YOU know this, arson... I just wanted to clarify).

Fortunately, I've never been cited for speeding; not once in all my many years of driving. Does this mean I've never exceeded the speed limit. No. It just means I haven't been caught. If, on the other hand, this were to change, I definitely wouldn't whine about it nor would I log into PW.N and ask how to get out of it (read beating the system). Instead, I would be a big girl and do the right thing.

You don't get it, Phooey. If we expect law enforcement to keep us safe, then we must allow law enforcement the right to manage those things which affect our safety. This includes the many ordinary things that both you and I take for granted (read driving).

[phooey182]

This has been my point all along. If the OP was speeding, he was obligated to pay the consequences (I know YOU know this, arson... I just wanted to clarify).

Fortunately, I've never been cited for speeding; not once in all my many years of driving. Does this mean I've never exceeded the speed limit. No. It just means I haven't been caught. If, on the other hand, this were to change, I definitely wouldn't whine about it nor would I log into PW.N and ask how to get out of it (read beating the system). Instead, I would be a big girl and do the right thing.

You don't get it, Phooey. If we expect law enforcement to keep us safe, then we must allow law enforcement the right to manage those things which affect our safety. This includes the many ordinary things that both you and I take for granted (read driving).

Well, I didn't get it when I first came here. But I get it now. I just don't agree. And disagreement is a good thing, especially in a free society. We have different expectations of LE and the courts. I don't have a particular problem with traffic tickets, I just think the penalties are too harsh and there's too much incentive for abuse.

[JediMaster]

Well, I didn't get it when I first came here. But I get it now. I just don't agree. And disagreement is a good thing, especially in a free society. We have different expectations of LE and the courts. I don't have a particular problem with traffic tickets, I just think the penalties are too harsh and there's too much incentive for abuse.

My opinion the penalties aren't harsh enough. Besides hitting a point limit and getting the license suspended, there's nothing to stop anyone from committing the offense.

You're problem one that thinks speeding is alright and that running a red light is no big deal among many other traffic offenses.

[nas78605]

This has been my point all along. If the OP was speeding, he was obligated to pay the consequences (I know YOU know this, arson... I just wanted to clarify).

Fortunately, I've never been cited for speeding; not once in all my many years of driving. Does this mean I've never exceeded the speed limit. No. It just means I haven't been caught. If, on the other hand, this were to change, I definitely wouldn't whine about it nor would I log into PW.N and ask how to get out of it (read beating the system). Instead, I would be a big girl and do the right thing.

You don't get it, Phooey. If we expect law enforcement to keep us safe, then we must allow law enforcement the right to manage those things which affect our safety. This includes the many ordinary things that both you and I take for granted (read driving).

You admit that you have exceeded the speed limit in the past but you've never been caught.. in my case i got caught but hired a good lawyer.. so how did i beat the system.. if anything i got lucky with finding a lawyer who knew the prosecutor.. just like you got lucky all the times you were speeding and didn't get caught..

[arson571]

You admit that you have exceeded the speed limit in the past but you've never been caught.. in my case i got caught but hired a good lawyer.. so how did i beat the system.. if anything i got lucky with finding a lawyer who knew the prosecutor.. just like you got lucky all the times you were speeding and didn't get caught..

You beat the system by circumventing it. You didn't go to trial, argue your case, and win. You utilized social relationships to get out of consequences you deserved. On the other hand, not getting caught in the first place is part of "the system". Therefore, you have gotten away with speeding like all of us by not being detected. However, once caught you participated in dishonest means to obtain what you wanted.

So I think CB2 is absolutely wrong in her characterization of you "beating the system". You cheated the system! Once again, congratulations. You sold your integrity for a sum less than $1,000.

[phooey182]

You beat the system by circumventing it. You didn't go to trial, argue your case, and win. You utilized social relationships to get out of consequences you deserved. On the other hand, not getting caught in the first place is part of "the system". Therefore, you have gotten away with speeding like all of us by not being detected. However, once caught you participated in dishonest means to obtain what you wanted.

So I think CB2 is absolutely wrong in her characterization of you "beating the system". You cheated the system! Once again, congratulations. You sold your integrity for a sum less than $1,000.

Not all cases go to trial. The 'system' doesn't always include a trial. Isn't hiring a lawyer to represent you part of the system?

And I don't think NB asked the lawyer to 'talk to his friend'. That was the lawyer's doing. Should NB have said, "Oh no, don't get me out of the ticket, please lets go to court."

[Crimebytes2]

You admit that you have exceeded the speed limit in the past but you've never been caught.. in my case i got caught but hired a good lawyer.. so how did i beat the system.. if anything i got lucky with finding a lawyer who knew the prosecutor.. just like you got lucky all the times you were speeding and didn't get caught..
Oh, good grief (sorry, sip... I'm frustrated). You make it sound like I committed a cardinal sin, when, in fact, I've done nothing of the sort. Most everyone exceeds the speed limit at one time or another, if not all the time. The truth is I'm very careful when driving and go out of my way not to speed or, for that matter, violate any ordinance (I respect the law). The point I was trying to make is this: if I were cited I wouldn't whine about it or try to beat, or in your case, cheat (way to go, arson) the system. If that's not bad enough, you come here (read pro-law enforcement site) and brag about it. BTW, you didn't find a lawyer who knew the prosecutor; you found a lawyer who had connections.

So I think CB2 is absolutely wrong in her characterization of you "beating the system". You cheated the system! Once again, congratulations. You sold your integrity for a sum less than $1,000.
You are absolutely right, arson! My bad. BTW, very well said.

We have different expectations of LE and the courts. I don't have a particular problem with traffic tickets, I just think the penalties are too harsh and there's too much incentive for abuse.
I wholeheartedly agree! Define harsh and incentive for abuse. I'm not interested in what the dictionary says; rather, I want your opinion.

[arson571]

Not all cases go to trial. The 'system' doesn't always include a trial. Isn't hiring a lawyer to represent you part of the system?

And I don't think NB asked the lawyer to 'talk to his friend'. That was the lawyer's doing. Should NB have said, "Oh no, don't get me out of the ticket, please lets go to court."

You are presupposing NB had no prior knowledge; we don't know. But an attorney's position is to ensure that you receive a fair trial and test the veracity of the prosecution's case. Not get you out of trouble by any means possible. The reason your "oh no, don't get me...etc." comment sounds absurd is because it's foundation presupposes that preserving one's money is more important than preserving one's character and integrity. So, the should is based upon the goals and values.

Here's the deal for me. You can steal my money, injure my reputation, and hurt my body. But it is only me that can sell my soul. I suppose the argument can be made that "everyone has their price". The point of my post to NB is one for self-reflection. If it has caused you to pause and reflect on your own values and integrity Phooey, then great.

[nas78605]

You are presupposing NB had no prior knowledge; we don't know. But an attorney's position is to ensure that you receive a fair trial and test the veracity of the prosecution's case. Not get you out of trouble by any means possible. The reason your "oh no, don't get me...etc." comment sounds absurd is because it's foundation presupposes that preserving one's money is more important than preserving one's character and integrity. So, the should is based upon the goals and values.

Here's the deal for me. You can steal my money, injure my reputation, and hurt my body. But it is only me that can sell my soul. I suppose the argument can be made that "everyone has their price". The point of my post to NB is one for self-reflection. If it has caused you to pause and reflect on your own values and integrity Phooey, then great.

I dont know this lawyer personally.. i searched the internet to find couple lawyers that are from that area.. he was the second lawyer i called.. and he was cost wasnt that much, so i hired him. And like you said its the lawyers job to ensure fair trial and test the veracity of the prosecution's case, not mine. So i didnt beat the system or cheated the system. I got lucky.. just like you get lucky not getting caught speeding.. i got lucky the lawyer could get the ticket thrown out.. because originally when i hired the lawyer was just to represent me cause i didnt want to drive up there.. but if he says he can get the ticket thrown out.. should i say no? be serious now..
You guys are talkin about selling soles and bullshit.. well morally your also doing wrong when u speed or break any law intentionally or unintentionally.. cause the system doesn't encourage braking the law if you dont get caught...

[zap]

Ummm.....has anyone considered that since this is an open forum...that this OP might not have hired a lawyer? In fact, has anyone considered that his suggested progression of events is less than honest?

In Ohio...a police chief or sheriff can be CHARGED for dismissing tickets without the arresting officer's conscent.


Is it possible that the OP hired a lawyer with connections to the prosecuting lawyer? Sure. Most lawyers know one another. Is it possible that the OP's lawyer asked for a favor? Sure. Is it possible the prosecuting lawyer granted the wish and cited prosecutorial discretion? Sure it is.

Is it likely...not very. Possible sure...but not likely.

Let me leave this thread with this note.... I recently sat down with a prosecutor about a case. He used these words -you have to sit there on cross and answer questions devised to confuse a jury from a "PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED LIAR!" ...


You know what....I don't really care.

If this is all true...and the ticked was dismissed...I'll BET it was because the prosecuting attorney recognized (or was told by the OP's attorney) that the attorney fees would be far greater than the fine and drive to court. Therefore....same effect. Say what you want, but do what I say! LOL

[nas78605]

All of you know i originally said I would happily pay the fine and didnt want to drive up that far.. cause the cost is too much.. so i hired a lawyer who turned out to be a cheaper alternative who i never met before in my life, he was the second lawyer i talked to, and i wanted him to represent me because i didnt want to drive for 4 hours and he was cheap.. and he tells me "i can get the ticket thrown out." So your telling me i should tell him "NO, please dont throw out the ticket"?

[zap]

All of you know i originally said I would happily pay the fine and didnt want to drive up that far.. cause the cost is too much.. so i hired a lawyer who turned out to be a cheaper alternative who i never met before in my life, he was the second lawyer i talked to, and i wanted him to represent me because i didnt want to drive for 4 hours and he was cheap.. and he tells me "i can get the ticket thrown out." So your telling me i should tell him "NO, please dont throw out the ticket"?

Of course not.

However, because the ticket might have been thrown out does not mean it was not completely rightous and completely valid.

What the others are trying to tell you is that the method you present, is not vindiction via the system. It is circumventing the system and not suffering just repercusions for your actions. You were not found not guilty. You were not in court wherein a judge ordered the citation be dismissed because the officer did not obtain your signature.

[nas78605]

If this is all true...and the ticked was dismissed...I'll BET it was because the prosecuting attorney recognized (or was told by the OP's attorney) that the attorney fees would be far greater than the fine and drive to court. Therefore....same effect. Say what you want, but do what I say! LOL

Your probably right.. i dont know what the lawyer and the prosecutor spoke about.. all i know is that the lawyer told me they were friends.. and like you said lawyers and prosecutors and other lawyers all know each other.. there is nothing wrong with that as long as they follow the legal system.. for all i know there could be many reason my case was dropped, i dont know why though..

[zap]

Your probably right.. i dont know what the lawyer and the prosecutor spoke about.. all i know is that the lawyer told me they were friends.. and like you said lawyers and prosecutors and other lawyers all know each other.. there is nothing wrong with that as long as they follow the legal system.. for all i know there could be many reason my case was dropped, i dont know why though..

Exactly. I think the lesson for you to learn (and I think you have) is that you were indeed fortunate to be on the receiving end of this particular circumstance.

However, just don't confuse the way this worked out for you with vindication through the system as does Phooey.

[arson571]

I agree with Zap. You were not exhonerated by the system, you got around it.

I believe CB2 questioned the honesty of your cheating the system. Point the finger at you lawyer if you like, but he represents you (your agent) and thereby acts in your stead.

The logic that because someone else on the forum speeds and is not caught is 'illegal too' has no relevance to you. It really doesn't matter what some else did or does. If I had done the exact same thing as you and were still of the opinion that I had sold my soul for the price of a sppeding ticket, how does it change the principle of the discussion?

I'm with Zap, I think you should reflect on it and learn from it. However, cheating and winning are different things.

[clevguru]

I for one grew up in on the border of a suburb/rural area where speed limits were typically 45 / 55 mph on the secondary roads or not posted at all. In addition, many road crossing also did not have stop signs.

Over the last 30 years though, that rural area has put up speed limit signs and stop signs and I do not disagree with that. As more city folk move out there, they are accustomed to such things an probably need them to avoid collisions and accidents.

What really kills me though is now living in Cuyahoga County, Ohio - probably the most oppressed region in ohio for taxation through traffic "enforcement", I have received many tickets. So it is my own policy to fight each and every one with an attorney and get most dismissed.

I have driven in Canada, mexico, central america, south america, and europe in many major cities and in the rural areas. I have over 2,000,000 miles of driving experience and no accidents. I'm not saying I won't cause an accident or be the recipient of getting slammed by a another motorist tomorrow and I acknowledge there are more factors than just driving experience and skill that can cause an accident.

In any case having driven all over the world, we have some of THE MOST OPPRESSIVE speed limits out there. Even where the are rules in place such as the 85 percentile rule, in most cases those rules seem to be ignored. Our speeds are in many cases not set at a safe limit but way below that. On example is the rural secondary roads in Kirland, Ohio have speed limits of 35 miles per hour and they will ticket you for 36 mph because of their policy of revenue generation over safety.

That being said, we have many speed traps in Ohio such as Linndale (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linndale,_Ohio), Willoughby Hills, Broadview Heights, and Kirland etc. Which issue tickets mostly as a revenue device. The officers freely admit in most cases the citation is a violation of the law and is more designed for revenue generation over safety.

How do I know that, I am a very person and easy to talk to so I normally have a conversation with the officer and simply ask them. I usually never criticize any police officer if I have any objections or complaints I normally tell them I am upset with the policies and or procedures of the city or it's ordinances, but I understand they are doing their jobs.

Anyway it is common practice because of "home rule" in ohio for municipalities to adopt 25 mph on secondary roads instead of the state mandated 35 mph. 25 mph is reasonable for extremely congested areas or residential streets, but not anywhere else. However because Ohio gives cities limited sovereignty via "home rule" so many cities override the state speed limits and post lower ones purely for revenue creation.

it goes against everything this country was founded on and returns us to a time reminiscent of the boston tea party. We are being taxed by colonial forces for which we get nothing in return.

If the state and or cities were really "moral" they would generate the revenue in a more legitimate mannor such as raise registration fees, increase plate fees, or start charging mileage tax on the car for use of the roads. Tolls can also be used.

Instead the states/cities have followed the Banks examples of imposing increasingly steep "penalties" for traffic violations while making it increasingly easy to get these violations. Also I have noticed most of the cities that prey on motorists have stopped giving any warnings at all.

So I don't feel bad in the least about fighting any tickets I am given in Ohio because the truckers call it "slowohio" and the state/cities here take every opportunity to rape the drivers without remorse or consideration of any mitigating circumstances.

Cleveland gets millions from red light & speeding cameras but the police blatently ignore citizens drinking from open containers of alcolohol and jay-walking. I have seen this many times occur right in front of law enforcement officers. The officers are pressured to get those high priced tickets though instead.

So unfortunately here in the Cleveland area we do not focus on Safety any more only revenue generation.

I have pledged to fight all these B.S. charges and am forming a group to get on the ballot a initiative to ban the red light cameras / speeding cameras. I haven't considered what we should do with the speed trap cities, but maybe an initiative to require all proceeds from traffic tickets to go to the state or charity might help even out the unfair pressure to generate revenue that is being placed on law enforcement here. I want to give the cops back the ability to make their own judgement on what speeds are safe and if they decide someone who hasn't had any violations at all might benefit from a warning (because they would probably abide by it).

The world of politics governing law enforcement has gotten way to out of kilter in my area and the results are increasing frustration for the cops and the citizens as well. We must do what we can to get things back to tolerable for both.

[tcyang86]

Not being from the area, but recalling similar discussions in the past, signature or not is irrelevant. It's still a valid ticket. If he forgot to tell you to sign, shame on him, but that doesn't mean you didn't break the law.

I've never understood the whole signing thing. Here in MN, the ticket doesn't even have a place to sign. No signature req'd here. Don't resolve the ticket? We'll just suspend your license. Out of state license? Nice try; we work quite well with the majority of the states of the Union. Chances are your home state is one of them. We just call your DMV/DLS (or whatever your state calls the driving division) and tell them the scoop, and they suspend your license.

so in minnesota if you get a speeding ticket the officer doesn't need your signture right? what about a warning, if you get a warnig do they issue you a warning ticket? or do they just give you a verbal warning?

[zap]

Anyway it is common practice because of "home rule" in ohio for municipalities to adopt 25 mph on secondary roads instead of the state mandated 35 mph. 25 mph is reasonable for extremely congested areas or residential streets, but not anywhere else. However because Ohio gives cities limited sovereignty via "home rule" so many cities override the state speed limits and post lower ones purely for revenue creation.


If you are going to rant and whine about a thread that has been dormant for over a year....at least get your facts straight.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.21 (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.21)

...in part....

(B) It is prima-facie lawful, in the absence of a lower limit declared or established pursuant to this section by the director of transportation or local authorities, for the operator of a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar to operate the same at a speed not exceeding the following:

(2) Twenty-five miles per hour in all other portions of a municipal corporation, except on state routes outside business districts, through highways outside business districts, and alleys;

(3) Thirty-five miles per hour on all state routes or through highways within municipal corporations outside business districts, except as provided in divisions (B)(4) and (6) of this section;