Fined for doing nothing wrong... Appeal or not?

[cougargirl]

Today I was a passenger in a car that was stopped by a Police Constable. Car was being driven by my Dad, who has always "forgotten" to put his seat belt on...

Today was no exception, I mentioned it and made sure my own seatbelt was secure.

Unfortunately, there was a police officer waiting around the corner. I knew we were going to be pulled over as Dad made such a performance of trying to get his seatbelt on. Fair enough, to be honest I'm surprised he hadn't been caught before.

However, somehow in all this, I was also accused of not wearing my seat belt, and apparently I was seen fastening my seat belt AFTER we turned the corner... This isn't true as I've already mentioned, it was already secured by the end of the road we were in. Which is about 300 yards from where we were pulled over.

What do I do? I had to accept the fine there and then, (I believe his name was PC Wayne Kerr....) and he kept telling me I could appeal... is it worth it? It's basically my word against his isn't it? If they believe him more than me, the fine escalates.

Very very peed off right now....

[MitchT]

Definitely appeal. Don't let them fleece you. My mate got done twice for not wearing a seat belt when he was wearing one because they simply had nothing better to do, or maybe lacked the balls to face criminals. He went ballistic the second time. Strangely the pig got the message and backed down on the issue but my mate was still out of pocket from the first time. So as I said, appeal or next they'll be fining you for breathing.

[Daschund]

Surely an officer would need proof other than "I saw you, I did!!"

[Mr_annie_vxr]

cougargirl said:

Today I was a passenger in a car that was stopped by a Police Constable. Car was being driven by my Dad, who has always "forgotten" to put his seat belt on...

Today was no exception, I mentioned it and made sure my own seatbelt was secure.

Unfortunately, there was a police officer waiting around the corner. I knew we were going to be pulled over as Dad made such a performance of trying to get his seatbelt on. Fair enough, to be honest I'm surprised he hadn't been caught before.

However, somehow in all this, I was also accused of not wearing my seat belt, and apparently I was seen fastening my seat belt AFTER we turned the corner... This isn't true as I've already mentioned, it was already secured by the end of the road we were in. Which is about 300 yards from where we were pulled over.

What do I do? I had to accept the fine there and then, (I believe his name was PC Wayne Kerr....) and he kept telling me I could appeal... is it worth it? It's basically my word against his isn't it? If they believe him more than me, the fine escalates.

Very very peed off right now....

Did you have your seatbelt on for the whole journey? Or did you just put it on when you saw the officer or after they saw you?

Your post suggests you did not.

If you had it on from the start of your journey then appeal.

Why did you feel the need to insult the officer?

[LotusACBC]

I can only give a similar experience, sort of. My girlfriend and I were driving, I always have worn my belt and always will, and I insist on my passengers to do the same whether they like it or not. Anyway, my girlfriend likes to wear it underneath her arm (not good I know, but what can you do) and so I was speeding, i'll admit it, when we got pulled over the police came to the window and while leaning in didnt see the strap under her arm and assumed it wasnt on. He went back to his car and when he came back to hand me a ticket, well he handed my girl one instead. I got off scott free, and she got a ticket for not wearing her seat belt. We showed him that she is wearing her belt but he didnt see it, and he used the excuse that he had already written the ticket.

In the end, I knew the police in the court we were summoned to and so we got off 100% scott free, just took 3 hours like it always does. But, if I didnt know the police, she would have had to pay for something she didnt do.

In other words, there is evidence or proof for your case, it is his word against yours, and he saw what he saw, you will have to pay.

It sucks I know, but thats how it goes. Your word against his.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

LotusACBC said:

I can only give a similar experience, sort of. My girlfriend and I were driving, I always have worn my belt and always will, and I insist on my passengers to do the same whether they like it or not. Anyway, my girlfriend likes to wear it underneath her arm (not good I know, but what can you do) and so I was speeding, i'll admit it, when we got pulled over the police came to the window and while leaning in didnt see the strap under her arm and assumed it wasnt on. He went back to his car and when he came back to hand me a ticket, well he handed my girl one instead. I got off scott free, and she got a ticket for not wearing her seat belt. We showed him that she is wearing her belt but he didnt see it, and he used the excuse that he had already written the ticket.

In the end, I knew the police in the court we were summoned to and so we got off 100% scott free, just took 3 hours like it always does. But, if I didnt know the police, she would have had to pay for something she didnt do.

In other words, there is evidence or proof for your case, it is his word against yours, and he saw what he saw, you will have to pay.

It sucks I know, but thats how it goes. Your word against his.

Wearing a seat belt means wearing it correctly. By having it under her arm she did commit the offence.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Daschund said:

Surely an officer would need proof other than "I saw you, I did!!"

Like?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

appeal mate. you should have said then and there to prove you were not wearing it! no proof means no fine......innocent until proven guilty!

its all about proof. especially if your dad is not appealing, as he is accepting he did nothing wrong which looks good on your part as im sure you would not have complained if you didnt have it on as well.

Appeal, and then if you take it to court (if its that big a fine) i cant see how it can be upheld.

If you got his name and badge number, then that will help.

I'm not a lawyer.....but my dad was, and i am sick of the police getting away with 'abuse of power' like this!

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Saturday 4th October 19:04

[LotusACBC]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

LotusACBC said:

I can only give a similar experience, sort of. My girlfriend and I were driving, I always have worn my belt and always will, and I insist on my passengers to do the same whether they like it or not. Anyway, my girlfriend likes to wear it underneath her arm (not good I know, but what can you do) and so I was speeding, i'll admit it, when we got pulled over the police came to the window and while leaning in didnt see the strap under her arm and assumed it wasnt on. He went back to his car and when he came back to hand me a ticket, well he handed my girl one instead. I got off scott free, and she got a ticket for not wearing her seat belt. We showed him that she is wearing her belt but he didnt see it, and he used the excuse that he had already written the ticket.

In the end, I knew the police in the court we were summoned to and so we got off 100% scott free, just took 3 hours like it always does. But, if I didnt know the police, she would have had to pay for something she didnt do.

In other words, there is evidence or proof for your case, it is his word against yours, and he saw what he saw, you will have to pay.

It sucks I know, but thats how it goes. Your word against his.

Wearing a seat belt means wearing it correctly. By having it under her arm she did commit the offence.

I assumed so as well, however he never mentioned it that way, he actually seemed taken aback at the fact that he made a mistake and then covered it as 'i already wrote the ticket.' He never once said, misproper use of a belt, although I agree with you.

[funkyboogalooo]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

cougargirl said:

Today was no exception, I mentioned it and made sure my own seatbelt was secure.

(I believe his name was PC Wayne Kerr....)

Did you have your seatbelt on for the whole journey? Or did you just put it on when you saw the officer or after they saw you?

Your post suggests you did not.

If you had it on from the start of your journey then appeal.

Why did you feel the need to insult the officer?

I dont think you've read post properly. As i read it she did have her belt on from the start and didn't insult the officer but simply posted tongue in cheek that his name might be Wayne Kerr!

[johnfm]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Daschund said:

Surely an officer would need proof other than "I saw you, I did!!"

Like?

A corroborating statement from another witness, I would expect.

Unless the burden of proof for such an offence is lower than 'reasonable doubt', which for a traffic offence I could believe.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

funkyboogalooo said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

cougargirl said:

Today was no exception, I mentioned it and made sure my own seatbelt was secure.

(I believe his name was PC Wayne Kerr....)

Did you have your seatbelt on for the whole journey? Or did you just put it on when you saw the officer or after they saw you?

Your post suggests you did not.

If you had it on from the start of your journey then appeal.

Why did you feel the need to insult the officer?

I dont think you've read post properly. As i read it she did have her belt on from the start and didn't insult the officer but simply posted tongue in cheek that his name might be Wayne Kerr!

No I read it .. she stated it was secure by the end of the road she was in... That suggests she move off without it and was securing it on the move.

That is why I asked for the clarification.

Calling the officer a wker is not tongue in cheek. They obviously believed she was not wearing it or they would not issue the ticket. Now what they believe and what is the case may be different. One persons view of an incident may be different from anothers.

So if she knows she had a belt on and that the officer could not have seen her putting her belt on or could have seen her do something but it was not putting her belt on which was on the whole journey then she should appeal. Her father can evidence her actions and that she told him to put his belt on.

[LotusACBC]

Come on guys, lets face it, when has someone ever made out in a situation like this. Something like this has happened to all of us at some point I would imagine, and if not, I am sure it will at some point in our lives. It has happened to me once before, a completely wrong accusal and ticket of something I did not do, the idiot police officer confused my car with another car that was driving wrecklessly. Funny thing is, the real perpetrator cut me off on his evasion of the cop I assumed. Try explaining that one, " No officer really, the guy had the same color car as mine, and yes it looked like mine, but I assure it wasnt, he just cut me off a minute ago and went that way."

Yeah right, I got the ticket and had to pay.

In case your wondering how that happened, I had a white 350Z and the evader had a white G35. We both had tints and aftermarket rims.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

johnfm said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Daschund said:

Surely an officer would need proof other than "I saw you, I did!!"

Like?

A corroborating statement from another witness, I would expect.

Unless the burden of proof for such an offence is lower than 'reasonable doubt', which for a traffic offence I could believe.

No it is the same. You do not have to have a corroborating statement. If you did then officers would not be able to work alone.

In Scotland you do have to have corroborating evidence I believe.

[baptistsan]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

No I read it .. she stated it was secure by the end of the road she was in... That suggests she move off without it and was securing it on the move.

That is why I asked for the clarification.

Calling the officer a wker is not tongue in cheek. They obviously believed she was not wearing it or they would not issue the ticket. Now what they believe and what is the case may be different. One persons view of an incident may be different from anothers.

So if she knows she had a belt on and that the officer could not have seen her putting her belt on or could have seen her do something but it was not putting her belt on which was on the whole journey then she should appeal. Her father can evidence her actions and that she told him to put his belt on.

Clearly you have not read her post.

She has stated she made sure her seatbelt was on before going anywhere.

She posted that she thinks PC Plod may have been called Wayne Kerr. At no point has she stated that she vocalised this thought to the officer.

You a politician by any chance?

[Hedders]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

johnfm said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Daschund said:

Surely an officer would need proof other than "I saw you, I did!!"

Like?

A corroborating statement from another witness, I would expect.

Unless the burden of proof for such an offence is lower than 'reasonable doubt', which for a traffic offence I could believe.

No it is the same. You do not have to have a corroborating statement. If you did then officers would not be able to work alone.

In Scotland you do have to have corroborating evidence I believe.

Surely there is a witness in this case, her dad. She has done nothing wrong, and has a corroborating statement. What does the officer have?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

baptistsan said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

No I read it .. she stated it was secure by the end of the road she was in... That suggests she move off without it and was securing it on the move.

That is why I asked for the clarification.

Calling the officer a wker is not tongue in cheek. They obviously believed she was not wearing it or they would not issue the ticket. Now what they believe and what is the case may be different. One persons view of an incident may be different from anothers.

So if she knows she had a belt on and that the officer could not have seen her putting her belt on or could have seen her do something but it was not putting her belt on which was on the whole journey then she should appeal. Her father can evidence her actions and that she told him to put his belt on.

Clearly you have not read her post.

She has stated she made sure her seatbelt was on before going anywhere.

She posted that she thinks PC Plod may have been called Wayne Kerr. At no point has she stated that she vocalised this thought to the officer.

You a politician by any chance?

cougargirl said:

r... This isn't true as I've already mentioned, it was already secured by the end of the road we were in. Which is about 300 yards from where we were pulled over.

Clearly you have not read that bit - which is why I asked her to clarify she had the belt on before she moved off. That leaves it open to her having put it on as they moved along. Which in turn may explain what the officer saw.

I never said she vocalised that comment - I asked why it was necessary.

My occupation is well known.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

johnfm said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Daschund said:

Surely an officer would need proof other than "I saw you, I did!!"

Like?

A corroborating statement from another witness, I would expect.

Unless the burden of proof for such an offence is lower than 'reasonable doubt', which for a traffic offence I could believe.

No it is the same. You do not have to have a corroborating statement. If you did then officers would not be able to work alone.

In Scotland you do have to have corroborating evidence I believe.

Surely there is a witness in this case, her dad. She has done nothing wrong, and has a corroborating statement. What does the officer have?

Apparently an honestly held belief in what he saw or he would not have issued the ticket.

As I said if she is happy at no point prior to be stopped she did not have her belt off then she should absolutely appeal.

An officers honestly held belief does not mean they are correct.

[rhinochopig]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I never said she vocalised that comment - I asked why it was necessary.

My occupation is well known.

Why do you feel the need to take offence on behalf of the officer? The police, like all professions have their fair share of wkers. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

rhinochopig said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I never said she vocalised that comment - I asked why it was necessary.

My occupation is well known.

Why do you feel the need to take offence on behalf of the officer? The police, like all professions have their fair share of wkers. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

Maybe I get fed up with cheap shots at officers just because people can- when she never said the officer was rude.

Insulting an individual who cannot defend themselves is not fair. From what she posted the officer acted correctly based on their belief. They didnt swear, didn't drag her out the car. They did their job and actions were they believed honest and for that get called a wker.

If the officer had been shouting, swearing and insulting or you know for sure they made up what they say they saw then yes by all means call the officer a wker.