Comment by ShawnJG
14 years ago
the main reason why you'd be able to overturn a speeding ticket in the first scenario you mentioned, is because the burden is on law enforcement to prove you are breaking the law. It's one of the last few bastions where the intangible burden of proof remains high and squarely placed on law enforcement.
In civil cases, it's not actually all that high. "Preponderence of the evidence" roughly means "it is more likely than not" the case that you are guilty of the alleged offense. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" only comes into play for criminal offenses.
Minor traffic offenses are civil, not criminal, so the much lower preponderence standard applies.
I purposely left it vauge because although minor thraffic offenses are civil (covering most speeding tickets) Other more serious traffic charges can be levied (driving with a suspended license, reckless driving, drunk driving)are considered criminal offenses. However the point remains that the burden in either instance is still in fact on law enforcement or the plaintiff in the civil proceedings most people are familiar with (i.e. johnson v pfizer)I know you know that already, but i just wanted to clarify for anyone else that have been mislead by my earlier post.