This guy took me to court today. Hilarity ensued.
I gave my usual cut and dried version of events on the day of the event. I usually leave out all the bullshit static the drivers tend to have because it has little or nothing to do with the violation. My opinions of the driver are not pertinent to what I am testifying to. Sure, the guy and/or girl could be the Duke of Douchebaggery, but it has jack to do with why the citation was written (although it is a lovely side benefit).
So, like I said, I gave my usual testimony. Now, the defendant has an opportunity to cross examine me. Joy…
PIG (Poorly Informed Guy…I know, awesome, right?): Officer, do you agree that you cited me for CVC 27315(d)?
MC: I believe I just testified to that very thing, sir.
PIG: And officer, do you agree that I was traveling on Main St.
PIG: Officer, do you agree that a “highway” is defined as a road that connects two towns or cities?
MC: Well, I’d have to refresh my memory of the vehicle code definition of a highway, but I’m pretty sure it means a roadway. I would like to point out that 27315(d) requires you to wear your seat belt on that roadway.
PIG: No further questions.
PIG: Yes, your Honor. Vehicle code section 27315(d) says, “No person shall operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt.” It is my contention that I was not driving upon a highway as Main St. does not, in fact, join to towns or cities. And that is why I am pleading not guilty.
**PIG had also handed both the Judge and I a stack of papers containing his main points.**
Judge: Sir, I don’t want to seem to be arguing with you, but where did you get your definition of a highway?
PIG: Webster’s Dictionary.
Judge: Again, sir, I’m not trying to argue with you; however, the vehicle code defines a highway as basically a road. I will take your case under submission so I can review the documentation you provided me.
Your old buddy MC had to stifle a chuckle at PIG’s last answer. Way to be prepared, wanna-be-lawyer-guy! The best part of the whole thing was that at no point did he offer up any defense as to why he wasn’t wearing the seat belt. Hell, he never said a damn thing about it one way or the other.
Now, I would’ve loved to have brought up his attitude at the stop. He was disrespectful and pompous. The fact of the matter is he was wrong…about a great many things. Bringing up his attitude in open court is neither professional or appropriate in my humble opinion. Besides, isn’t that what blogs are for?