Traffic court

Back in March, Sprite received a citation for texting while driving. In June, we attended arraignment and pleaded "not guilty." Today was his court date at 9:30 am.

We left the apartment at 9 and pulled into the parking lot at 9:14. He was nervous that we would be late. I told him he can park in front and I'll go park the car. Instead, he pulled into the first row of parking and jumped out snapping, "I can't park there..." There was a green line right in front of the courthouse which he noticed on the way there where he could have stopped.

Anyway, going into the courthouse, I had to pass through metal detectors. Have I ever told you that these things always make me nervous? Some of the men had to take off their belts. I had my pocket knife hidden in a zipped pocket in my purse. As I walked through, nothing. Fairly typical in lack of effectiveness.

I found Sprite in courtroom A. Sitting. Along with some other defendants/traffic violators. We waited. 9:36. 9:48, the officers came in. Many held hand-drawn diagrams rolled up in their hands. (I giggled picturing officers having diagram drawing parties for their court appearances.) Some wore suits. Others wore uniforms. 10:02 the commissioner finally came in. He took a quick roll call of the cases present. All cases in which the officers weren't present were dismissed. As for ours? No such luck. He then gave the defendants one last chance to change pleas and take traffic school. No takers. Off we go then to different courts!

I realized as I was sitting there just how much work and time it took just to get someone to pay their fines. First, arraignment. The easiest part. Guilty or not guilty. Fine or no fine. A lot of people were weeded out the first time through guilty pleas. Next, trial date. 50% dismissal rate (based on today) because of officer absence. Finally, in court where defendants might be found not guilty. All this, for a $126 ticket in our case.

In a different courtroom in a bungalow, the officers and the defendants sat divided on two sides. To me, this arrangement immediately created a sense of antagonism or at least established a sense of opposing interests. I wondered what the purpose of this was? Maybe it was easier for the judge to locate people?

More waiting, and finally the judge entered. Sprite's officer asked for priority so he went ahead with his testimony first.

He started with, "My name is ____. I am an officer with the San Diego Police Department. I have been with the force for 11 months. On March 19th, at approximately 22 hundred hours, I was at ___ in full uniform driving a marked car when I stopped at a red light...After I pulled him over, I asked, 'Do you know why I stopped you?' Mr. Juarez answered, "I was playing with my cell phone...'" Note to whomever: Try taking the fifth. That was your words in the courtroom being used against you. Did not sound so great did it? I cringed.

He also illustrated the whole incidence with magnetic police cars on his diagram. I wondered if they taught recruits how to make that as well as how to speak in court during training. Anyway, through his testimony, it seemed like Sprite made a wide left turn cutting into another lane which probably prompted the officer to pull him over.

When his turn ended, the judge turned to Sprite and asked if he had any questions or any statements. So apparently, the defendant had the right to ask the officer any questions before giving his statement or can choose to remain silent. Sprite gave his side, submitting his phone and phone records as evidence. During evidence submission, the bailiff presented both for the officer to examine as well to verify them. The judge looked through the text message records as well as the phone record, scanned through the relevant section in the vehicular code and sighed. In short, because the burden of proof is on the officer and the evidence clearly cast doubt on texting, Sprite was found not guilty.

Despite this, the judge gave Sprite a lecture on traffic safety: Though the law does not exclude the playing of songs on the cell phone, it was still a obvious distraction from task at hand. You should be focused on the road. Is it really that important to listen to your favorite song? And I have no doubt, officer, that you saw what you saw. However, since the law does not specifically ban music, I have to find him not guilty.

During his whole lecture which lasted a good five minutes or so, it was obvious to me that
1. He definitely believed the officer and was on his side.
2. Would've found Sprite guilty had the law been a little broader.
3. Was going to rule in Sprite's favor.
4. Disapproved of distractions and considered road safety to be equally important as the letter of the law.
Through this, Sprite was nodding his agreement in between silences. What cracked me up though, was his hand gestures that he made during the relevant times.
The judge: "...cell phone..."
Sprite: nodding with right hand in a phone position by his right ear.
The judge: "...unsafe..."
Sprite: nods once, pointing forward with right index and middle finger together, the thumb cocked up, and the rest of the fingers tucked in to the palm. I think that signals agreement as well.
Sprite even tried to argue that the turn was too sharp, to which again, the judge went on about safety.

The whole time, I kept thinking, "Just apologize, say you won't do it again and shut up." The judge was already going to rule in your favor, albeit reluctantly, so just appear contrite so we can go.

After we left, I teased him that obviously I haven't trained him enough. In cases where you can't win, such as arguments with the mom, the girlfriend or the judge, just apologize and move on. They won't know better unless you get caught again. Like the lady in the front desk said, "Just keep your cell phone down."