A basic legal question

[cockypirate]

Originally Posted by catdaddy66

Doing what she was told to do, I guess. I go to court as well when told to do so, and am unaware of other options. If you mean paying the fine by mail I wouldn't trust that to be accomplished. Just my cynical view of our court system. They will f*** you at every turn!

Yea don't trust the mail in the money way out. I did that for a little no life jacket ticket about 3 years ago, just $100 so i mailed it in, but it never got to them for some reason. Needless to say i got pulled for no seat belt a couple of months later and had a warrant for my arrest, for that BS ticket.

[catdaddy66]

Originally Posted by cockypirate

Yea don't trust the mail in the money way out. I did that for a little no life jacket ticket about 3 years ago, just $100 so i mailed it in, but it never got to them for some reason. Needless to say i got pulled for no seat belt a couple of months later and had a warrant for my arrest, for that BS ticket.

I know people this has happened to! Absolutely no sympathy from the court, the person charged is always at fault, no other possible reason for the situation. Pisses me off their attitude when dealing with people. If I treated people that same way in my business I would get complaints and be fired!

[SpecOps Cock]

Originally Posted by cocky0

Traffic violations are criminal law violations, and as such you are afforded the right to a speedy trial which is why most states have lower courts that deal specifically with those crimes that occur frequently, and are generally punishable by small fines. Anyways I may be no attorney, but I do have my bachelor's in criminal justice which means I did study this a little bit. And I do know for a fact that 6th amendment cases have been heard and decided in regards to traffic violations.

The problem is that the definition of speedy trial varies from state to state, and certain violations are erroneously labeled as civil offenses in order to prevent sixth amendment arguments. (See traffic camera laws.)

Anyways I'm going to leave it at that, because that is about the extent of my knowledge on this subject without spending hours looking up court cases. I spent an entire year doing that during my Constitutional Law classes, and I don't care to relive that again .

You missed the point of why the 6th amendment even comes in to play. I dont understand why you would refer to a speedy trial when it's not even necessary. Unless the continuance goes on and on. This complaint would not even be validated by the courts.

[LeeSC]

As this was a VERY simple case and the officer did not have his crap together, she should have asked for a dismissal.

With a case this simple, there is NO excuse for an officer to waste any more of the defendent's or the Court's time because he or she can't get their crap together.

[catdaddy66]

Originally Posted by LeeSC

As this was a VERY simple case and the officer did not have his crap together, she should have asked for a dismissal.

With a case this simple, there is NO excuse for an officer to waste any more of the defendent's or the Court's time because he or she can't get their crap together.

[cocky0]

Originally Posted by SpecOps Cock

You missed the point of why the 6th amendment even comes in to play. I dont understand why you would refer to a speedy trial when it's not even necessary. Unless the continuance goes on and on. This complaint would not even be validated by the courts.

You asked what the 6th amendment had to do with a traffic case, I answered.

Originally Posted by LeeSC

As this was a VERY simple case and the officer did not have his crap together, she should have asked for a dismissal.

With a case this simple, there is NO excuse for an officer to waste any more of the defendent's or the Court's time because he or she can't get their crap together.

Exactly and that is why I made the point I made.



Just in case there are any questions:

"Traffic offenses are offenses against the State in violation of penal law and therefore are criminal in nature. Thus the processes and procedural safeguards discussed in the CRIMINAL section apply to traffic offenses."

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summ...rafficA.htm#A1

"Article I, Section 14 of the S.C. Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide that the accused in a criminal trial shall have the right to a speedy and public trial. The right to a speedy trial is a right which can be waived. Waiver of such right is generally inferred where (1) the accused failed to make timely demand that he be either tried or discharged, (2) the court grants a continuance on motion of the accused or with his consent, or (3) the accused voluntarily entered a plea of guilty without raising the question of denial of a speedy trial. Wheeler v. State, 247 S.C. 393, 401, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966).

The constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial affords protection only against unnecessary or unreasonable delay. State v. Chapman, 289 S.C. 42, 344 S.E.2d 611 (1986). The determination of whether or not an accused has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial depends on the circumstances of each case. State v. Brazell, 325 S.C. 65, 75, 480 S.E.2d 64,70 (1997). For the defendant to establish the fact that he has been denied a speedy trial, he must demonstrate the delay was attributable to the neglect and willfulness of the State. State v. Dukes, 256 S.C. 218, 222, 182 S.E.2d 286, 288 (1971). Certain factors which must be considered in determining whether the defendant has been denied a speedy trial are: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the government's reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. This four part balancing test was adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S.514 (1972). "South Carolina has also adopted this approach to the speedy trial analysis." See Brazell, supra, State v. Smith, 307 S.C. 376, 415 S.E.2d 409 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Robinson, 335 S.C. 620, 518 S.E.2d 269 (Ct. App. 1999)."

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summ.../CriminalG.htm


She went to her trial at the appointed time and place with the intent to plea guilty and pay the appropriate fine. When she attempted to do so, the magistrate delayed the hearing until another date. Why? Maybe it was like LeeSC said or maybe it was a misunderstanding. Who knows? Assuming that the original story is true, then one may assume that one of those reasons were why it was delayed. And if that is true, then it seemingly falls right into the scope of "neglect and willfulness of the State."

So unless there are other details not discussed here, then she would be well within her rights to seek dismissal on those basis. However, like I stated above, she should speak to an attorney and allow him to make the decision on whether or not to move forward.

[2000grad]

Well, who said magistrates know the law? you don't even have to have a JD to be a magistrate