On thurs. me and my buddy were 4 wheeling in sawyer county and at the end of our ride about 30 miles from home we stoped and were having a pop and a DNR pulled up and made shure our ATV's were registered (they were) so he asks for our atv saftey class cards. my buddy kyle had his but i never took a class becasue when i had my 4 wheeler you didnt need one. i thought that once you had your drivers license you didnt need it.

But it is just like the snowmobile saftey deal. you need it if you were born after 1988

So the DNR gave me a $150 ticket and my buddy kyles dad a ticket for letting me ride his atv uncertified

should i co to court and try to fight it to get it lowered or just not waste my time?

thanks Adam

Wow WI is anal. Maine you don't need anything to do anything just a drivers license to drive haha.

Know your laws before you ride and pay your ticket other wise you cost the tax payers more in court cost than you owe. Also your friends dad is liable for letting you ride his quad. It was his responsability to make sure you were certified before he let you run his wheeler.

It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything extra for him to have his day in court. The magistrate or judge will already be paid to be there and this issue shouldn't tie up more than 5-10 minutes of court time. The officer will have to show up but court time is already budgeted into the dept budget way in advance. I don't agree with giving up ones due process rights in order to save a few bucks.

Don't know about wisconson,but in minnesota as long as you have a valid drivers license and registered quad you are legal!

If guys like him weren't trying to fight thier own stupidity, the magistrate and the officer wouldn't have to be there. Do the crime, pay the fine!

"Know your laws before you ride and pay your ticket other wise you cost the tax payers more in court cost than you owe. Also your friends dad is liable for letting you ride his quad. It was his responsability to make sure you were certified before he let you run his wheeler.
If guys like him weren't trying to fight thier own stupidity, the magistrate and the officer wouldn't have to be there. Do the crime, pay the fine!"

This sounds like typical law enforcement chatter.. The HUGE problem with this is that it sets the cop up to not only be a cop but also Judge and Jury,,, simply CANNOT work.. Everyone and anyone has a right to their day in court, its the way our constitution is written and what our country is built on.. When "innocent until proven guilty" no longer exists we are in big trouble!!!

If he followed the law and was innocent, yet still got the ticket then I wouldn't have a problem with him fighting this. He said that he didn't have his safety certificate, so he didn't follow the law. And no I am not law enforcement. I am just tired of idiots not following laws then thinking the fines or punishment shouldn't apply to them cause they're special or something.

it does seem kinda harsh, id fight it....

I am law enforcement and I encouraged him to schedule a court date. Ripper your right he does have rights that shouldn't be over looked because someone wants to save a few bucks and elimanate court. It sounds like he made an honest mistake and many times magistrates and judges will take that into account when passing down a judgement. He may even be fortunate and have the citation dismissed. On the other hand I know all cops don't think they are the judge and jury when they enforce the law. They are simply the enforcing arm of the justice system in which the legislature saw fit to pass the law they are enforcing. People don't like cops because they are charged with enforcing in many cases unpopular laws. So be it but to label every cop as believing they are judge and jury simply is wrong and comes across as jaded IMO.

why am i an idiot because i asked a honest ? dick head. im not try to get out of the fine. im more than willing to pay it because i was wrong i was just askin for advice on what i should do i havent ever got a ticket. sorry for posting on you web sight

I hope you don't take this the wrong way...but I was kinda in the same stiuation...we have a stupid law that does not alow of moterized off road toys to operate in town...I was sitting parked on my sled in a field near the edge of town...seen the police pull up...he had a long walk to get to me lol. I stayed because I was not doing anything wrong...he told me about the law and said your breaking it...I told him i was not in the city and not operating the machine...he told me egnorance of the law is not an excuse...and I would have to pay the fine...not sure what happend next but he left without giving me the ticket...must of been tooE far to walk back to me. lol Any way I guess what i'm trying to say is this...even though it sucks "egnorance of the law is not a valid excuse". I would still go to the court office and talke to some one there...if you explain what happend chances are your tcket will be taken care of.IMO anyway.

Yea I have nothing against cops because I know some that are cool, but most of the cops in our town think they own the place, always standing around with mirror sunglasses thinking there james bond and giving people tickets for pointless things. We have a cop at our school who acts like hes patrolling CIA headquarters its a riot, 2 girls were in a slapping fight and he tazered them to the ground because he said he feared for his life. I guess local cops around here dont see much action. I can see if it was a NY city school but were in Windham Maine... hick town with not much going on. I'm not trying to say cops are bad my dad used to be a state trooper and I'm pretty good friends with a local cop.

Lmao, so true, thinks hes king shit kinda like our "school cop" who thinks hes patrolling the CIA or FBI headquarters.

Fixitguy74 I think I know you....You are the guy sitting on the porch with a handgun waiting for a tresspasser right? How is that burn on your neck...have som compassion for this kid that did not know he was doing wrong.

Take this from someone involved in the court system... request a hearing and ask for reductions. Law Enforcement and the Judiciary have discretion when making decisions for a reason. Plead your case, indicate that a valuable lesson was learned and that you have shared this lesson with many other parties interested in your recreational pursuits.

Most court officials do not view all informal hearing requests as "trying to get out of it", just the ones that come in with a chip on their shoulder..

also 9 times out of 10 if you plead innocent initally then ask to speak to the da he will cut you a deal to get you out of there

WRONG!!!!!!!!!! Check the laws before you post info like that. Born after a certain date you need the class and card in MINNESOTA..... now you know

Apparently I struck a nerve with a few of you. I am sorry I felt the need to speak my mind, but your responses will not change my mind about this. I am tired of my tax dollars getting spent on pointless wastes of time. Some of you have said he made an honest mistake, but if you were speeding and didn't see the limit sign does that make it o.k. Uh NO!!! Just like his situation. Pay the stupid fine and get it over with!

Fix it guy

Yeah, it's a nerve with me....

There are mistakes made all over the justice system that cost taxpayers a hell of lot more money than a simple traffic citation. Magistrates and district level judges are built-in court costs, so requesting an informal hearing is not only his legal right but already paid for. The real waste is overzealous prosecutors like the Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor who not only cost taxpayers an undefinable amount of money and wasted resources but he also invoked irreperable harm to the justice system. Or... take the following story where a man was released after serving a year in jail for a crime he DID NOT commit. Pay particular attention to how the investigative authorities "questioned" him

The point is nobody IS perfect and every aspect of the law; enforcement, prosecution, and judicial has discretionary powers for a reason.

Being honest, contrite and humble as one accepts responsiblity for one's actions ought to be looked at with discretion by those who dole out punishment.







McCollum case shakes faith in system
Some question how conviction was even possible

Christine Rook
and Kevin Grasha

On a clear January morning in 2005 on the downtown campus of Lansing Community College, a 27-year-old man walked into a computer lab intent on studying.

Claude McCollum wanted a degree in business and to make something of himself.

He left the lab to take a break at about 7:20 a.m. Not long after, professor Carolyn Kronenberg drove to the campus to teach her morning class.
Advertisement

Kronenberg arrived after 8 a.m., parked on Capitol Avenue near the Student Personnel Services building and began to unload class supplies.

Campus police spotted her, saw all was well and moved on.

About 8:40 a.m. a student found her bleeding on a classroom floor.

She had been beaten, sexually assaulted and strangled.

Within days, the joint Lansing and LCC police investigation focused on McCollum, and on Valentine's Day 2006, the Lansing man found himself convicted of a rape and murder he didn't commit.

McCollum was cleared of all charges Wednesday, leaving everyone to wonder: How could police, prosecutors and jurors be so wrong?

"I've been absolutely sick about it," said Tina Lee, 41, who served on the jury that unanimously found McCollum guilty. "A man that didn't deserve to go to prison went to prison. I ask God every day to make his life better."

Uncertain evidence

It was McCollum's statement to police that convinced jurors to vote "guilty," jurors said.

There was no DNA evidence that linked him to the crime, no fingerprints that put him there, no eyewitnesses and no conclusive fiber forensics. Yet, after a 10-day trial and five hours of deliberations McCollum's peers convicted him.

The prosecutor in the case, Eric Matwiejczyk, claimed to have a confession. And he did have a statement of sorts - an interview filled with hypothetical questions and hypothetical answers. McCollum described a series of hypothetical scenarios, including how he could have committed the crime if he had been sleepwalking. It's a statement that uses the word "possible," which Matwiejczyk characterized at trial as actuality.

"You know he's used that word - he's used that word, folks, it's possible, you know," the prosecutor said in his closing statement. "I think you can glean from that what's possible, that's what happened; that's what happened. That's his word for telling you he did it."

Poking at process

Defense experts are quick to note innocent people sometimes confess. Maybe they feel intimidated. Maybe they don't realize their words will be interpreted as a confession.

About 25 percent of wrongful convictions turn out to be cases where the defendant falsely confessed, according to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City.

"We all know that's the tip of the iceberg," Thomas M. Cooley Law School professor Ron Bretz said.

He said statistics show that an estimated 1 to 10 percent of prisoners in the United States are innocent.

The jury put a lot of weight on McCollum's statement.

Lansing police Detective Bruce Lankheet got that statement in January 2005 at the department's North Precinct in an interrogation. An LCC detective also was present. Prior to the dismissal of McCollum's case, the now-retired Lankheet said the interrogation was not unlike hundreds of others he conducted in his 24-year career.

"You talk to people who may or may not be suspects and see if you can elicit information that shows they may or may not have committed the crime," he said from his home in North Carolina.

'The jury got it wrong'

At trial, Lankheet noted for jurors why McCollum was a suspect: "As we got into the interview, there was some significant admissions and confessions of things that we realized suddenly (McCollum) became a suspect in this case."

But their suspect wound up being innocent.

"I think the jury got it wrong. I think they ignored the evidence," said McCollum's trial lawyer Lee Taylor.

To prepare a proper defense, Taylor would have needed to know every bit of evidence for and against his client. Prosecutors are supposed to hand over all evidence in a trial. Did they, though?

Taylor said earlier this week that prior to this year, he never received a 2005 Michigan State Police report that said McCollum couldn't have killed Kronenberg.

Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III has asked the state attorney general's office to review the handling of video surveillance evidence in the investigation.

Matwiejczyk said he could not comment on the case because it has been reopened.

"I don't want to compromise the investigation by saying things publicly," he said.

Taylor isn't willing to stop at a state investigation. He said he would work with McCollum's current lawyer, Hugh Clarke Jr., to push for a federal investigation.

Conviction unravels

The case began to fall apart over the summer after McCollum had spent about a year and a half in state prison.

Another man, officials say, named Matthew E. Macon confessed to the Kronenberg killing, a confession that state police last week acknowledged existed.

That confession ultimately caused officials to reopen the McCollum investigation in September. By the end of the month, a Court of Appeals had thrown out the 2006 conviction and granted McCollum a new trial.

On Wednesday, all charges against McCollum were dismissed.

Area defense attorneys have been watching the case.

They say it's reflective of the hurdles their clients face in the courtroom.

Jurors are impressed by police in their uniforms and suits.

"There's a preconceived bias that if someone is on trial, they must have done something," said Randall Behrmann, a criminal defense lawyer with Grewal & Associates in Lansing.

He still, however, believes in the system.

"Show me one that works better," he said.

Taylor, though, recalls being angry after the McCollum verdict was handed up by jurors on that winter day in 2006.

Asked about his faith in the justice system, Taylor said: "It certainly shakes it. Doesn't it?"

bump

You didn't know the law and got a ticket. You can have your day in court, but i hope that you are found guilty and have no reduction in the fine. Again you broke the law.

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this case yes he was wrongfully accused and convicted, so he did deserve his day in court, but the original poster admitted he was guilty and didn't have the safety course certificate. So why does he need his day in court? Is it a right we should all have? Yes, but don't abuse it when you know you did wrong. As for the built in cost thing. Maybe if people would stop wasting the courts time with stupid law suits and and getting your day in court when you know you're guilty, then there wouldn't be as much money needed for "built in cost" putting less burden on the tax payers.

But who is really wasting taxpayer money?




Police using motorists for fundraising

If you've noticed an increase in the number of police speed traps of late, you are not alone.

Traffic police in Michigan and elsewhere in the United States are turning motorists into mobile cash dispensers, as states' fund-raising efforts turn desperate.

Aside from the blatant misuse of law enforcement resources, this trend effectively amounts to a hidden taxation program and hopefully should arouse a public backlash.
Speed traps, focus misplaced

Even the auto insurance companies are getting in on the act. One mild-mannered driver I know recently received a letter from his insurer threatening him with policy cancellation or a much higher premium. His crime: two very modest speeding infractions; 35 in a 30-mph and 55 in a 50-mph zone within a few months. This blow comes on top of an outrageous $180 fine for the first offense, the penalty being doubled because he was in a construction zone, even though the work was on a bridge above the road in question.



Local and state police are going out of their way to set up traps in such "easy pickings" locations. These are not legitimate targets like school zones, but lightly trafficked roads in prosperous neighborhoods that have artificially low speed limits. The results are tickets for school mums and shoppers -- not exactly hardened criminal material.

Why not set up the traps in crime-ridden areas where people who deserve to be stopped for much worse than a simple "five over" are likely to be snagged?

Better still, why not concentrate on real driving offenses, like the insane lane weavers we suffer on Detroit freeways or the left-lane hogs who refuse to move over for faster traffic, causing backups and massed frustration in the process?

Interestingly, there is one state, Utah, which actually does the right thing in this regard. Slow drivers who "impede or block the normal and reasonable flow of traffic" can be fined.

Unfortunately, such common-sense legislation is rare.

Consider, for example, the nightmare facing residents of Virginia, where draconian four-figure fines are being levied for the most trivial traffic violations. Going 15 mph over the posted limit in Virginia will cost a driver a whopping extra $1,050 above the normal $200 fine and other court expenses. It gets worse: exceeding 80 mph in Virginia is considered reckless driving -- a criminal offense -- and fines of $2,500 and jail time are possible. Whether or not Virginia legislators think the 80 mph-plus truly qualifies as reckless is a moot point; they are counting on generating $65 million for the state coffers without raising taxes.
Current speeds acceptable

The issue for Michigan motorists is that if we are not careful we could end up in a similarly repressive "police state" driving environment. In normal, light-to-moderate traffic conditions, the average speed on Michigan freeways is around 80-85 mph. In my book, that is perfectly acceptable, because our roads and vehicles are built to be safe at that speed, if not higher.

Remember that speed itself is not the problem. Bad driving is. And that is a question of improving driver training.

What worries is the thought that if our state legislators envy the fund-raising tactics being employed in Virginia or other like-minded states, they may decide to turn us all into criminals.

Man what do you do all day besides ride that shitty yellow dirtbike? did you atempt to become a rent-a-cop but got rejected so now you just sit online and pretend to be one? Give the guy a break I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU HAVE BROKE THE LAW BEFORE! Evertime that you ride that banana you rev it over 96 dba did you know you could get a fine for that? Have you ever rode it without a helmet? what about jay walking? what about throwing garbage on the ground? everybody has broken the law some how. Anyways take it to court should be a open and shut case. ps looking for a shorty seat if anybody has one pm me please.

Fix it guy
From looking at your avitar I was wondering, is there a reason you look so "festive." your dense responses I gather that you feel the officer had nothing better to do that day than write a ticket to a responsible sounding young man. How about a warning and some education on what is needed for riding legally.

Go buy a real dirt bike and get the stick out of your rear and learn how to ride!
Maybe you wouldn't be such a pain in the butt. Or ride like you have a pain in the butt.

Dang! Who pooped on your pop tart this morning. As for braking the law, yes I have been busted for speeding a few times and I payed the fine. I didn't fight it, and didn't whine or cry about it. I took responsibility for my actions.

On the subject of the yellow bomber that you feel the need to bash, it looks a little rough (unrestored 81 YZ250) but runs great and is surprisingly quiet for a two stroke. I keep up on the maintenance, including repacking the silencer and I added a spark arrestor that is also packed to reduce the noise level. If I cant pass a decibel test and get a ticket, I will gladly pay the fine then go rework the exhaust to fix the problem. Also I do not ride without a helmet ever, I prefer to be able to see the wife and kids after a long trail ride or day at the track and not my maker any sooner than I have to.



P.S. I never wanted to be a RENT-A-COP or any other form of law enforcement. I'm just a stand up guy who owns up to his mistakes and wrong doings.

I don't have a motorcycle endorsement and if i go out and ride one and get caught i would expect to get a ticket. This guy didn't know the law, but it was his responsibility to LEARN the law. IMO this is not a frivilous ticket.

HuHHH??!???????
Are you insane? It certainly DOES cost more for going through the court process!! Ever hear of Court cousts if you go to trial? That is over and above the cost of ANY citation issued in WI. That isn't paid by us taxpayers, but by the guilty party. Always has been. Yeah, the judge is being paid, but you think the costs for filing the documents and all that in Madison is done for free?? No way. Court cousts are usually around $75.00 over the ticket in WI.
And OT for the Officer to be in court is NOT figured into any department budgets!! All we figure in is the OT for covering for vacation time for those who are off duty if the crews go down below minimum manning levels. Yes, I am a cop, have been for 20 years now. Yes, in WI. Yes, I also enforce snowmobile and ATV laws. The citations are valid and they will be found guilty of both charges. Pretty hard to say I didn't know on both and have the judge say, okay fine. This time we will let you off with a warning. Anyone who rides an ATV and has been born on or after the date of 01/01/88 MUST have the ATV Safety course AND carry the certificate with them for the rest of their lives when they are operating an ATV. Any person who owns an ATV and allows someone to operate without having the certification- when needed- is liable to be cited also. So, they are both guilty of these statutes. Sorry. Expensive lesson. I always tell my sled safety attendees to put a wallet they only use for snowmobiling in their snowmobile jacket. Keep the certificate in the jacket. Don't keep iton the machine becuase if you don't have it with YOU and your machine is somewhere else, you are still liable to be cited.
Food for thought. Wallets are cheaper than citations.

shut up STUPID

Why is that stupid?

I guess I would have to say that I am on the fence about this. Yes, a person should take responsibility for his or her own actions, but sometimes a simple broken law could deserve a warning instead of a ticket. Could the kids attitude have played a part in how this was handled by the officer? I would think so, but I don't know because I wasn't there.

I recently moved from SD to MN and I came in contact with a law much like this one. I needed the snowmobile saftey card just like the 13 year olds need to take. I didn't find out by getting a ticket, but I did end up finding out accidently. I guess I probably wouldn't have known about the law until then. A warning would have set me straight and fixed this problem. I would have been a little upset about a ticket, but I would have paid it anyway. I'm not thinking that going to court will gain you anything, but I guess it is up to you. You might just want to pay the fine and treat it as a lesson learned.

Share the info with your buddies, so it doesn't happen to them. The cop may have been a jerk, but he isn't exactly wrong either.

Hey sledboy no I'm not insane and apparently I know a little bit more about police budgets than you do in your 20 years of L.E. work. Don't budget for court ot?????? So you expect either that your officers will never make arrests, never get subpeonaed, never have to go to exams or trials or depositions Huh? Maybe they are just told to not write citations or don't arrest to avoid unbudgeted OT. I guess you could fix all that with constant schedule changes but here in MI that wouldn't hold up very well. Any police budget I've ever seen takes into account court o.t. and this includes many budgets we discussed at the FBI national academy. Not to step on your 20 years but your wrong. Also to clarify I said the taxpayer in the scheme of things pays very little for him to go to an informal hearing or pre-trial on a citation. Divide the judges time by the hundreds of people they see a day and its pretty small. Maybe you have a 1 dept court and your costs are more but here in Oakland County MI the costs would be fairly minimal.

oooooooooooohhhhhh, Snap!!!!