CA DL suspended -$2,000 fine pending - help? (1 Viewer)

[-fish-]

in California, there's a good chance he has a bench warrant. he needs to go to court and get things cleared up and try to get the fines reduced. contrary to what woz said, if he has proof that he was insured, he should take it with him and show the court. the judges have a lot of discretion.

Interesting. So in California there's no statutory fine for no proof of insurance? Or do you mean a judge has the discretion to undue his previous order?

Having no insurance<> no proof of insurance. No proof, but you have it, at least used to be the equivalent to a fix-it ticket. He said he was insured, but didn't have proof.

I recognize the difference. In AZ they are essentially penalized the same. Additionally, if the judge has already found the defendant responsible, I would imagine what specific violation he's been charged with wouldn't matter - the factual determination on the case has already been made.

They aren't the same in California and no determination was made. Defaults are routinely set aside as a matter of policy. California hates defaults. Plus, it's traffic court. The judge has a significant amount of discretion. If he shows up, dresses appropriately, acts respectfully and has proof he was insured there is a good chance the judge will help him out.

 

[Das Boot]

Better call Saul!

 

[tdoss]

How is there not a warrant out for his arrest on the FTA?

dunno, maybe there is one.

I can almost guarantee there's a bench warrant out there.

When I was young...I had three speeding tickets in various CA areas. I got pulled over...yes, for speeding a few years after not appearing and was immediately hauled off to jail. I spent 3 days in Long Beach...no court appearance...then shipped to L.A. and spent 3 days there (while O.J. was on his own floor after the slow speed chase)...no court appearance...then shipped to Orange County Main and spent 3 days there on the Farm and at Main. Finally got into court...in chains. I thought, "Oh yea...there's gonna be some serious apologies or something...I'd fallen through the cracks and the system jammed me up. I didn't get my due process...judge will say "So Sorry" and let me go with everything clear."

Nope...I guess they can hold you up to 3 days for each count...spending your time at each location before getting your time infront of a judge. Few thousand dollars in fines, 3 years informal probation and still got hassled for years because the system always seemed to have a glitch and didn't clear the warrants properly. I had to keep the court transcripts on my person for years...just so I could show a cop if he happened to ask my name...cause he'd see those warrants.

It finally got cleared up but it's no fun.

He HAS to go to the court and have them put his case on the docket...get ahead of this now and they'll probably slap him on the wrist with fines and whatnot...but probably no jail time cause they're full. But if he gets pulled...he's spending a few days in...and they may tack on more just because he didn't come in.

 

[tdoss]

I think he can dispute the fines in writing but he has to pay them first. If the fines are deemed in error or reduced (unlikely) he'd get money back. Dealing with LA county DMV or parking tickets or anything like that is difficult and infuriating. Best case scenario is he can end up in court, claim financial hardship and maybe they take mercy on him but that's probably unlikely. If he got those tickets and ignored them he's likely sol.

Claiming financial hardship will probably result in he paying in installments. I doubt they waive the fee.

Yep...and they sometimes offer working it off...

 

[tdoss]

Move to Vegas. Get new license. Move back.

Nope...I had a Virginia license when they pulled me in...that warrant don't care what license you have...as soon as they run your name, bingo.

 

[tdoss]

in California, there's a good chance he has a bench warrant. he needs to go to court and get things cleared up and try to get the fines reduced. contrary to what woz said, if he has proof that he was insured, he should take it with him and show the court. the judges have a lot of discretion.

Interesting. So in California there's no statutory fine for no proof of insurance? Or do you mean a judge has the discretion to undue his previous order?

Having no insurance<> no proof of insurance. No proof, but you have it, at least used to be the equivalent to a fix-it ticket. He said he was insured, but didn't have proof.

I recognize the difference. In AZ they are essentially penalized the same. Additionally, if the judge has already found the defendant responsible, I would imagine what specific violation he's been charged with wouldn't matter - the factual determination on the case has already been made.

They aren't the same in California and no determination was made. Defaults are routinely set aside as a matter of policy. California hates defaults. Plus, it's traffic court. The judge has a significant amount of discretion. If he shows up, dresses appropriately, acts respectfully and has proof he was insured there is a good chance the judge will help him out.

This.

And do not be on the phone or texting or chewing gum while waiting in the courtroom all day. Bailiff will take great pride in tossing him out.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Woz already hit this, but just to add a California practitioner's voice, I have never heard of anyone getting arrested for walking in to the criminal courts building and attempting to resolve an outstanding bench warrant, at least not for anything involving the Vehicle Code where no one was hurt, etc. It's not supposed to work that way; they want people to come in and clear things up and arresting the person does nothing to advance the ball down the field.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Better call Saul!

Call the Wolf.

 

[Fennis]

Might give these guys a call: http://www.helpwithtrafficticket.com/Los-Angeles-traffic-attorney/gc-services.php

any thoughts?

quick update. My brother called this guy yesterday. The lawyer went down to the court today to "check out the situation" and said that with proof of insurance the lawyer can:

1) Get my brother's license reinstated within 24 hours

2) Have fine reduced to a "couple hundred dollars"

3) He charges $750 flat fee.

My brother explains to the attorney he isn't working. The lawyer explained what needs to be done (same as what -fish- outlines) and said it can be done by my brother on his own. So my brother has gathered proof of insurance from the insurance agent, proof car was registered, and is going down to the court to see if he can get a court date/time (its probably too late today to be seen today). We will see what happens next.

 

[-fish-]

Might give these guys a call: http://www.helpwithtrafficticket.com/Los-Angeles-traffic-attorney/gc-services.php

any thoughts?

quick update. My brother called this guy yesterday. The lawyer went down to the court today to "check out the situation" and said that with proof of insurance the lawyer can:

1) Get my brother's license reinstated within 24 hours

2) Have fine reduced to a "couple hundred dollars"

3) He charges $750 flat fee.

My brother explains to the attorney he isn't working. The lawyer explained what needs to be done (same as what -fish- outlines) and said it can be done by my brother on his own. So my brother has gathered proof of insurance from the insurance agent, proof car was registered, and is going down to the court to see if he can get a court date/time (its probably too late today to be seen today). We will see what happens next.

it would be a good idea for him to have someone else drive him to court. you don't want a judge or bailiff happening to see him driving on a suspended license as he's trying to clear this up. plus, if he gets pulled over there's a good chance he goes straight to jail.

 

[Fennis]

Might give these guys a call: http://www.helpwithtrafficticket.com/Los-Angeles-traffic-attorney/gc-services.php

any thoughts?

quick update. My brother called this guy yesterday. The lawyer went down to the court today to "check out the situation" and said that with proof of insurance the lawyer can:

1) Get my brother's license reinstated within 24 hours

2) Have fine reduced to a "couple hundred dollars"

3) He charges $750 flat fee.

My brother explains to the attorney he isn't working. The lawyer explained what needs to be done (same as what -fish- outlines) and said it can be done by my brother on his own. So my brother has gathered proof of insurance from the insurance agent, proof car was registered, and is going down to the court to see if he can get a court date/time (its probably too late today to be seen today). We will see what happens next.

it would be a good idea for him to have someone else drive him to court. you don't want a judge or bailiff happening to see him driving on a suspended license as he's trying to clear this up. plus, if he gets pulled over there's a good chance he goes straight to jail.

I told him to stop driving, that if he gets pulled over he will get arrested. Ill tell him to make sure someone drives him to the court house.

 

[Zow]

in California, there's a good chance he has a bench warrant. he needs to go to court and get things cleared up and try to get the fines reduced. contrary to what woz said, if he has proof that he was insured, he should take it with him and show the court. the judges have a lot of discretion.

Interesting. So in California there's no statutory fine for no proof of insurance? Or do you mean a judge has the discretion to undue his previous order?

Having no insurance<> no proof of insurance. No proof, but you have it, at least used to be the equivalent to a fix-it ticket. He said he was insured, but didn't have proof.

I recognize the difference. In AZ they are essentially penalized the same. Additionally, if the judge has already found the defendant responsible, I would imagine what specific violation he's been charged with wouldn't matter - the factual determination on the case has already been made.

They aren't the same in California and no determination was made. Defaults are routinely set aside as a matter of policy. California hates defaults. Plus, it's traffic court. The judge has a significant amount of discretion. If he shows up, dresses appropriately, acts respectfully and has proof he was insured there is a good chance the judge will help him out.

Cool. Good to know too so I can actually encourage people with Cali traffic court issues to go clear them up.

 

[-fish-]

in California, there's a good chance he has a bench warrant. he needs to go to court and get things cleared up and try to get the fines reduced. contrary to what woz said, if he has proof that he was insured, he should take it with him and show the court. the judges have a lot of discretion.

Interesting. So in California there's no statutory fine for no proof of insurance? Or do you mean a judge has the discretion to undue his previous order?

Having no insurance<> no proof of insurance. No proof, but you have it, at least used to be the equivalent to a fix-it ticket. He said he was insured, but didn't have proof.

I recognize the difference. In AZ they are essentially penalized the same. Additionally, if the judge has already found the defendant responsible, I would imagine what specific violation he's been charged with wouldn't matter - the factual determination on the case has already been made.

They aren't the same in California and no determination was made. Defaults are routinely set aside as a matter of policy. California hates defaults. Plus, it's traffic court. The judge has a significant amount of discretion. If he shows up, dresses appropriately, acts respectfully and has proof he was insured there is a good chance the judge will help him out.

Cool. Good to know too so I can actually encourage people with Cali traffic court issues to go clear them up.

It's actually easier than that in some courts. Some of the traffic courts have a clerk's window for officers of the court where an attorney can just walk up, sort everything out with the clerk, and clear up any of the old stuff to the point where if there is a court hearing, it's on as few issues as possible.

 

[Zow]

in California, there's a good chance he has a bench warrant. he needs to go to court and get things cleared up and try to get the fines reduced. contrary to what woz said, if he has proof that he was insured, he should take it with him and show the court. the judges have a lot of discretion.

Interesting. So in California there's no statutory fine for no proof of insurance? Or do you mean a judge has the discretion to undue his previous order?

Having no insurance<> no proof of insurance. No proof, but you have it, at least used to be the equivalent to a fix-it ticket. He said he was insured, but didn't have proof.

I recognize the difference. In AZ they are essentially penalized the same. Additionally, if the judge has already found the defendant responsible, I would imagine what specific violation he's been charged with wouldn't matter - the factual determination on the case has already been made.

They aren't the same in California and no determination was made. Defaults are routinely set aside as a matter of policy. California hates defaults. Plus, it's traffic court. The judge has a significant amount of discretion. If he shows up, dresses appropriately, acts respectfully and has proof he was insured there is a good chance the judge will help him out.

Cool. Good to know too so I can actually encourage people with Cali traffic court issues to go clear them up.

It's actually easier than that in some courts. Some of the traffic courts have a clerk's window for officers of the court where an attorney can just walk up, sort everything out with the clerk, and clear up any of the old stuff to the point where if there is a court hearing, it's on as few issues as possible.

Awesome.

Yet another reason for me to tell people that if they're going to break laws, it's far better to do so in California than in Arizona. I'm pretty convinced that bordering the same river is about all the two states have in common.

 

[-fish-]

in California, there's a good chance he has a bench warrant. he needs to go to court and get things cleared up and try to get the fines reduced. contrary to what woz said, if he has proof that he was insured, he should take it with him and show the court. the judges have a lot of discretion.

Interesting. So in California there's no statutory fine for no proof of insurance? Or do you mean a judge has the discretion to undue his previous order?

Having no insurance<> no proof of insurance. No proof, but you have it, at least used to be the equivalent to a fix-it ticket. He said he was insured, but didn't have proof.

I recognize the difference. In AZ they are essentially penalized the same. Additionally, if the judge has already found the defendant responsible, I would imagine what specific violation he's been charged with wouldn't matter - the factual determination on the case has already been made.

They aren't the same in California and no determination was made. Defaults are routinely set aside as a matter of policy. California hates defaults. Plus, it's traffic court. The judge has a significant amount of discretion. If he shows up, dresses appropriately, acts respectfully and has proof he was insured there is a good chance the judge will help him out.

Cool. Good to know too so I can actually encourage people with Cali traffic court issues to go clear them up.

It's actually easier than that in some courts. Some of the traffic courts have a clerk's window for officers of the court where an attorney can just walk up, sort everything out with the clerk, and clear up any of the old stuff to the point where if there is a court hearing, it's on as few issues as possible.

Awesome.

Yet another reason for me to tell people that if they're going to break laws, it's far better to do so in California than in Arizona. I'm pretty convinced that bordering the same river is about all the two states have in common.

California's courts generally have a pretty practical approach to things. It's all about efficiency and being able to minimize court time (except family law, which is an abomination). I'm amazed how much time other states waste with things like mandatory oral argument on every motion.

 

[drummer]

in California, there's a good chance he has a bench warrant. he needs to go to court and get things cleared up and try to get the fines reduced. contrary to what woz said, if he has proof that he was insured, he should take it with him and show the court. the judges have a lot of discretion.

Interesting. So in California there's no statutory fine for no proof of insurance? Or do you mean a judge has the discretion to undue his previous order?

Having no insurance<> no proof of insurance. No proof, but you have it, at least used to be the equivalent to a fix-it ticket. He said he was insured, but didn't have proof.

I recognize the difference. In AZ they are essentially penalized the same. Additionally, if the judge has already found the defendant responsible, I would imagine what specific violation he's been charged with wouldn't matter - the factual determination on the case has already been made.

They aren't the same in California and no determination was made. Defaults are routinely set aside as a matter of policy. California hates defaults. Plus, it's traffic court. The judge has a significant amount of discretion. If he shows up, dresses appropriately, acts respectfully and has proof he was insured there is a good chance the judge will help him out.

Cool. Good to know too so I can actually encourage people with Cali traffic court issues to go clear them up.

It's actually easier than that in some courts. Some of the traffic courts have a clerk's window for officers of the court where an attorney can just walk up, sort everything out with the clerk, and clear up any of the old stuff to the point where if there is a court hearing, it's on as few issues as possible.

Awesome.

Yet another reason for me to tell people that if they're going to break laws, it's far better to do so in California than in Arizona. I'm pretty convinced that bordering the same river is about all the two states have in common.

California's courts generally have a pretty practical approach to things. It's all about efficiency and being able to minimize court time (except family law, which is an abomination). I'm amazed how much time other states waste with things like mandatory oral argument on every motion.

That is if they aren't inundated by cases due to budget cuts.

 

[Fennis]

So good news for my brother, it turns out California is, in fact, not like Arizona in the slightest.

He went down to the court on Friday and spoke to a clerk at the window. They charged him $10.00 to remove the suspension on his license. They gave him a form he needs to take to the DMV on Tuesday and he will be able to renew his license. They also scheduled a court hearing towards the end of June for them original case. He will bring his proof of insurance and proof that the car was registered and we will see what happens next.

Thanks all!

 

[drummer]

So good news for my brother, it turns out California is, in fact, not like Arizona in the slightest.

He went down to the court on Friday and spoke to a clerk at the window. They charged him $10.00 to remove the suspension on his license. They gave him a form he needs to take to the DMV on Tuesday and he will be able to renew his license. They also scheduled a court hearing towards the end of June for them original case. He will bring his proof of insurance and proof that the car was registered and we will see what happens next.

Thanks all!

That's awesome. I'm surprised he got off that easy here in CA.

 

[Fennis]

So good news for my brother, it turns out California is, in fact, not like Arizona in the slightest.

He went down to the court on Friday and spoke to a clerk at the window. They charged him $10.00 to remove the suspension on his license. They gave him a form he needs to take to the DMV on Tuesday and he will be able to renew his license. They also scheduled a court hearing towards the end of June for them original case. He will bring his proof of insurance and proof that the car was registered and we will see what happens next.

Thanks all!

That's awesome. I'm surprised he got off that easy here in CA.

Me too, but I'm glad he caught a break.

 

[Aerial Assault]

So good news for my brother, it turns out California is, in fact, not like Arizona in the slightest.

He went down to the court on Friday and spoke to a clerk at the window. They charged him $10.00 to remove the suspension on his license. They gave him a form he needs to take to the DMV on Tuesday and he will be able to renew his license. They also scheduled a court hearing towards the end of June for them original case. He will bring his proof of insurance and proof that the car was registered and we will see what happens next.

Thanks all!

That's awesome. I'm surprised he got off that easy here in CA.

Me too, but I'm glad he caught a break.

Honestly, that makes sense. He very well might get fined an uncomfortable amount (hopefully not too much) by the judge, but he came in himself and manned up and handled it. Being apologetic and very deferential to the court should go a long way and he'll hopefully be fine. Good news.

 

[-fish-]

Another win for not listening to woz

 

[Henry Ford]

They would have beaten him up and thrown him in a cop car in Louisiana. Then probably intentionally driven into a wall, pulled him out and beaten him up again.

 

[Zow]

Another win for not listening to woz

You'd only know that if you have me off ignore. So I must have done something right to get taken off "ignore" status.

I call that a win.

 

[Zow]

So good news for my brother, it turns out California is, in fact, not like Arizona in the slightest.

No, no it is not.

 

[Zow]

They would have beaten him up and thrown him in a cop car in Louisiana. Then probably intentionally driven into a wall, pulled him out and beaten him up again.

Eh, it's not this bad in AZ. Here, they just fine you until your broke, suspend your license indefinitely as incentive to get you to pay your fines, however provide terrible public transportation options so when you can't work to pay off your fines because you can't get to your job they jail you for not paying your fines... then charge you "jail fees" for your jail stay at a clip higher than any Hilton and tack those fees on top of your original fines.

If the judge wants to be extra "fun" he'll cite your failure to pay fines as a contempt charge meaning you have a new conviction and therefore can theoretically be jailed an indefinite number of times for failing to pay your fines.

I came across a guy a couple months ago who owed 90,000 dollars in fines and fees to the misdemeanor court in my jurisdiction. Whee!

 

[Fennis]

So good news for my brother, it turns out California is, in fact, not like Arizona in the slightest.

He went down to the court on Friday and spoke to a clerk at the window. They charged him $10.00 to remove the suspension on his license. They gave him a form he needs to take to the DMV on Tuesday and he will be able to renew his license. They also scheduled a court hearing towards the end of June for them original case. He will bring his proof of insurance and proof that the car was registered and we will see what happens next.

Thanks all!

That's awesome. I'm surprised he got off that easy here in CA.

Me too, but I'm glad he caught a break.

Honestly, that makes sense. He very well might get fined an uncomfortable amount (hopefully not too much) by the judge, but he came in himself and manned up and handled it. Being apologetic and very deferential to the court should go a long way and he'll hopefully be fine. Good news.

last update:

He had his court date last week. He had four charges, I don't know the exact charges, but they were something like:

1) Driving without insurance - he brought proof of insurance - dismissed

2) Driving without registration- brought proof of registration - dismissed

3) Failure to appear - explained what happened - dismissed

4) Something regarding the original collections - dismissed

He was required to pay $100 in dismissal charges

 

[NCCommish]

Can't beat that

 

[-fish-]

So good news for my brother, it turns out California is, in fact, not like Arizona in the slightest.

He went down to the court on Friday and spoke to a clerk at the window. They charged him $10.00 to remove the suspension on his license. They gave him a form he needs to take to the DMV on Tuesday and he will be able to renew his license. They also scheduled a court hearing towards the end of June for them original case. He will bring his proof of insurance and proof that the car was registered and we will see what happens next.

Thanks all!

That's awesome. I'm surprised he got off that easy here in CA.

Me too, but I'm glad he caught a break.

Honestly, that makes sense. He very well might get fined an uncomfortable amount (hopefully not too much) by the judge, but he came in himself and manned up and handled it. Being apologetic and very deferential to the court should go a long way and he'll hopefully be fine. Good news.

last update:

He had his court date last week. He had four charges, I don't know the exact charges, but they were something like:

1) Driving without insurance - he brought proof of insurance - dismissed

2) Driving without registration- brought proof of registration - dismissed

3) Failure to appear - explained what happened - dismissed

4) Something regarding the original collections - dismissed

He was required to pay $100 in dismissal charges

this is what was supposed to happen. congrats to him on successfully navigating the traffic court system without doing something stupid to f it all up.