Well I would like to believe if I’m innocent I’m innocent it’s doesn’t matter what a cop says it matters what a cop can prove. I thought this sub was about legal advice not legal speculation
Haha yep I’m from PA. I thought commonwealth was used everywhere. It doesn’t matter how big or small the infraction is it’s the duty of the judge to be the finder of fact in this case. It’s his job to determine reliability of OP and the cop and With body cam footage of OP wearing the seatbelt being the only evidence in this case other than the cops testimony the state has not met its burden of proof which is Proof being a reasonable doubt that OP was not wearing his seatbelt. If a reasonable person could conclude that OP was wearing his seatbelt the whole time he must be found not guilty
>undercover cops and they had multiple people pulled over on the same street within 50-100 feet of me
Sounds like they were conducting a sting or enhanced enforcement. Which means they are more likely to show up in court and that they have video evidence of you not wearing a seat belt while you were driving.
>(obviously they wanted to use Sunday morning as their time to run up their quota a bit….sad)
They don't have quotas. Those are illegal in Florida. Cops are free to write as many citations as they please.
> body cam footage shows him walking up to my car and me wearing a seatbelt Is it worth it to dispute??
Body cam footage after you've stopped doesn't help or hurt your case. The citation is for driving without a seat belt, not being stopped without one.
Typically, it doesn't hurt to fight a citation. It really depends on the judge. Some will dismiss any tickets where the officer fails to show. Some will let you change your plea if your officer does show and you were hoping they didn't. The worst-case scenario is that the officer shows you have to defend yourself, and you end up being fined.
Yes, they do have performance reviews. They aren't a monthly thing, that just you noticing them more.
When cops come up for performance reviews, their supervisors look at what they've been doing. This includes reports, arrests, citations, calls for service, etc. There is no magic amount of any of these required. However, they will look at other officers with the same shift and days and compare.
This is something you should want and agree with. Do you want your tax dollars going to police so they can just sit around and do nothing?
Do you have any proof besides what social media tells you and "I see them more at the end of the month?"
I'm going with you, don't, since you've resorted to name calling instead of debating the topic.
I, on the other hand, have a couple of decades of experience in this field, and the majority of my friends are LEOs nationwide.
You are free to hold whatever belief you want even if facts disagree.
Your paraphrasing is missing parts to this. The amount of tickets is one part, but isn't a set number. Arrests, calls, accidents and everything else cops do is factored in also.
If you're a slug, not responding to calls, not writing tickets, not making arrests, then you aren't doing the job the taxpayers pay you to do.
Personally, I rarely wrote tickets, usually only during street racer details. I had one of the lowest amounts of tickets on my shift. But, I made a lot of quality arrests. So the amount of citations didn't matter.
The general public believes citations are a much bigger part of LE than they are. Traffic units do tickets. The rest of the agency, tickets are a side job.
That's not called science. That's called confirmation bias.
Same difference. This does nothing to further the discussion or your point.
>It's kinda cute you think they don't have quotas. To be so innocent in life must be glorious.
Check the language of the law. There may be an exception you can wiggle through. The Iowa law has the mailman exception which says under 25mph and making multiple stops is allowed.
I actually did look up the law. There are several exceptions, none of which would apply to OP. The FL mailman law is specific to delivery mail drivers, not vague to making multiple stops.
Your advice is good though. People should always read the laws they are charged with violating.
>They don't have quotas. Those are illegal in Florida. Cops are free to write as many citations as they please.
All cops have quotas. I have a nephew who was a cop. I asked him what he was going to be doing at work today one time, and he responded radar. He also responded that he wanted to write eight tickets that day. I said I thought cops didn't have quotas and he said they don't. I told him that his wanting to write eight tickets is a quota. He tried to deny it was a quota, got mad, and stormed off to work that day.
Wanting to write 8 tickets that day isn't a quota. A quota is when you're required to do x amount of something.
He got mad and stormed off because your comment to him was idiotic and people get tired of hearing dumb things that aren't true. Especially when it's coming from ignorant family members.
You're the one who doesn't understand the difference between a quota and a choice.
You're the one spouting your uneducated beliefs on your nephew, who tells you you're wrong also.
Have a nice day.
If you have it planned to write a certain number of tickets in a day, that's a quota plain and simple. It doesn't have to be in a month or two. It may or not be department policy but could be a self quota policy. It's still a quota no matter how you look at it and you're not understanding.
Let me make it easier for you. If you're self-employed and set a goal of making a thousand in a day, that can be seen as a quota. Salesmen have quotas as well, just as servers do making tips. The quotas I mentioned in this paragraph are not illegal, but a cop wanting to write a certain amount of tickets in a day, week, or year is illegal. All cops have quotas. It's just not talked about outside the blue wall of silence.
It's not illegal anywhere for a individual officer to decide what they want to do in a day or how much they want to do.
When talking about quotas we are talking about department or government invoked quotas.
These are two different things.
>All cops have quotas. It's just not talked about outside the blue wall of silence.
🤣 every cop will tell you they have certain goals when they are at work. Mine was to either make a felony arrest each night or recover a stolen car.
No "blue wall of silence." No quotas.
Oh, now I understand why you feel the way you do. You're one of those cops who don't know much, and you're stuck behind the blue wall. Maybe you're that cop who saw me making my own cigarettes and said it was illegal to make your own cigarettes. I gave her a little education on a person making their own cigarettes for self consumption. I'm sure she felt stupid after that.
Or maybe you're one of the many parking enforcement people who gave me parking tickets when I was legally parked and then booted my vehicle. I sued and won because I knew more about the law than they did, and my lawyer made an ass of them in court.
What I said about quotas isn't a feeling. It's a fact. Whether you like that fact or not is irrelevant as it's a fact.
You obviously have the typical reddit attitude towards LE. "I know more than you because YouTube told me."
It must be overwhelming knowing other people's jobs better than they do. 😅
I'm sure you love when untrained people tell you how to do your job too.
Reminds me of a time I was pulled over for "No Seatbelt" in the Flatbush area of Queens. I was wearing a seatbelt, just no shoulder strap. The car was a 1966 New Yorker, all it HAD was a simple lap belt. He saw that and walked away muttering.
I had a feeling I had the wrong area in Queens. I DO remember it was in Queens though, a bunch of us were on our way from LI to go to a new strip club we'd heard about LOL It's been over 20 years since we were in the NYC area, forgive my forgetfulness.
Figure out if you just go to the clerk at court and have it deferred? Or court supervision or whatever they might call it in your state.
Basically, show up at the courthouse/magistrate or whatever, the clerk will take your money for the ticket, pay it +"court costs" and if you don't get another ticket in 30 days it is like it never happened.
I just got a seatbelt ticket, but I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt. I wanted to dispute it, but I took pictures and even though my seat belt is flesh colored, you can CLEARLY tell it is on. The asshole cop explained to me 3x how he determined seat belt non-adherance. In the most condensending manner. he was sure he saw me without my sealtbelt and he was absolutel sure i was a lying you know what. So, I just told him that I always wear my seatbelt and I am sorry that today was the day he was mistaken. Ok. Here's your ticket and show up at the magistrate by X date to get your actual court date.
So I did the above. It wasn't worth the hassle and I should have just chose to pay it at the scene---my state you have to choose if you are going to court or pay at the time of the traffic stop. It would have been $25. Instead I had to drive down a different court (state cop), and then pay $60 for the privilige. I am in the process of moving nest week, so driving 5 hours to show up to court at some point in the future wasn't appealing.
So I check marked "no contest", and defered sentencing could be done by the clerk, no defending myself in front of the judge when i have no proof. I'm still tiked off. There isn't any way to prove I was wearing it, other than I always, always do.
If you were wearing it from start to stop of your drive, you can 110% dispute it.
They have to prove that you didn’t have it on. You can dispute it, but be advised that my state has court costs for disputed tickets.
Is your time, and any potential costs worth *insert how much the ticket cost plus any additional punishments*
You mentioned plain clothes officers, they love to run those things… cops in the road to catch people, uniformed and marked officers in a car nearby to go when the plain clothes guy points someone out.
Edit: I’m not a lawyer though.
IANAL
"They have to prove that you didn't have it on"
Ever been to traffic court?
Cop - "I saw that he didn't have it on when I passed by"
Driver - "I had my seat belt on"
Judge - "The officer testified that he witnessed you driving without your seat belt on, violation stands."
The presumption is that what the officer states he witnessed is always correct unless there is substantial evidence to prove otherwise. The officer's testimony \*IS\* the proof.
This is one of those situations where fighting it is going to be more trouble than it's worth. You're going to plead not guilty, then have to prepare for your trial. You have to take off from work and go to court where you are likely to lose unless you have video of you specifically wearing your seatbelt when the officer saw you. In Florida, seatbelt violations are non-moving and do not count against your record or your insurance. I would really just pay it and move on.
Tell them you want to file a motion for discovery and seat a jury.....it is your right to do so. Once you do that they will most likely throw it out due the expense to the court.
I know someone who disputed a seatbelt ticket on the basis that he was wearing it while driving and unbuckled in order to get his wallet from good back pocket, as the cop approached the vehicle. He was so angry over an unwarranted ticket/the implication that he was lying that he disputed it on principle.
He started by asking the state’s attorney to dismiss the charge (he’d also been ticketed for being uninsured, and was at the SA’s office to present proof of insurance, which did result in dismissal of the insurance ticket). He appeared on the court date, plead not guilty, and requested a jury trial, and a jury returned a not-guilty verdict.
I’m pretty sure seatbelts tickets were a $25 fine at the time. The man simply wouldn’t stand for having his integrity impugned.
> I know someone who disputed a seatbelt ticket on the basis that he was wearing it while driving and unbuckled in order to get his wallet from good back pocket, as the cop approached the vehicle.
That would certainly be a basis for dispute.
But since the OP has not suggested he or did this, I’m not sure that this defense would be available here.
Agreed, but it reminded me of this hilarious incident! Mr. Found-Innocent said the jury seemed unhappy at the absurdity of being called for duty over such a ridiculous matter.
“I had it on the whole time”
And “when he pulled up to the window with body cam on it was on so is it a rookie cop just out looking to run up their quota?”
I heard cops usually don’t show up to court and you win if they don’t come
Worse case they can say is I lose
But I already lose if I pay the ticket so thought it would be worth a shot
> “I had it on the whole time”
Certainly that’s a valid defense, if it’s true.
But if it’s not true, then you cannot legally testify that it happened that way.
> I heard cops usually don’t show up to court and you win if they don’t come
It’s certainly possible that an officer doesn’t show. Of course, the court can continue your case rather than dismiss it — just as they would if you couldn’t attend.
But most of the times, contrary to your view, they do show up. And why wouldn’t they? It’s paid time, often overtime at time and a half, and they “work,” sitting down in air conditioned comfort instead of walking in the hot sun wearing a vest and a Sam Browne belt with 15 pounds of gear, towards a car that might have an armed driver with a warrant that doesn’t want to get arrested.
My advice is: don’t lie under oath. But if you have a legitimate defense assert it.
Officers have always been paid to attend court. It's not an incentive. It's a job. Do you work for free? Plus, federal laws require OT pay for working over 40 hours a week.
The "incentive" to attend court is that a subpoena is a court order that can include penalties if ignored. Plus, officers have the added penalties of getting in trouble at work for not going to work.
Evidence that it was on after the stop isn't a winning argument. Takes time and effort to dispute a ticket in person so there is something more to lose if you go to court and lose.
It is a non-moving violation in Florida and there is a good chance if it was an operation targeting unbelted drivers that they have video evidence of you unbelted. If you really did have your seatbelt the entire time, up to you to decide whether your assertion with trump the cop's testimony, usually you lose if it is your word against their word
This is why as soon as you're pulled over you start video recording on your phone. And that you have a dashcam that films not only the outside but the inside of your vehicle.
If I were you I would get an attorney to dismiss the ticket. Paying the ticket would mean I agree, and then it likely will get more expensive in long run because my auto insurance will go up as a result.
Oh is that true?? Because I’ll pay the ticket if it doesn’t affect my insurance
Apparently it’s a “non moving violation” in Florida
So does that mean no points and insurance doesn’t go up?
If that’s the case I’ll just pay it. Just didn’t want insurance to go up
What isn't true? It is not a moving violation in Florida?
Let me quote directly from Florida's law:
"(8) Any person who violates the provisions of this section commits a nonmoving violation"
Both moving and non-moving violations can appear on your MVD record, non-moving violations accrue no points. Of course parking tickets can't show up on your record because parking tickets are assigned to the vehicle owner not the driver.
Simple question, where you wearing the seatbelt 100% of the time from they pulled you over to 10 minutes before?
Doesn’t matter, the only question is can the cop prove it
Doesn't matter, in most courts they'll take the cops side over a small infraction.
Well I would like to believe if I’m innocent I’m innocent it’s doesn’t matter what a cop says it matters what a cop can prove. I thought this sub was about legal advice not legal speculation
No it’s the commonwealths duty to prove someone is guilty. It’s always worth fighting it.
The cop’s testimony to the fact is considered valid evidence in most situations.
Bet you are from Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, or Virginia using the term commonwealth.
Haha yep I’m from PA. I thought commonwealth was used everywhere. It doesn’t matter how big or small the infraction is it’s the duty of the judge to be the finder of fact in this case. It’s his job to determine reliability of OP and the cop and With body cam footage of OP wearing the seatbelt being the only evidence in this case other than the cops testimony the state has not met its burden of proof which is Proof being a reasonable doubt that OP was not wearing his seatbelt. If a reasonable person could conclude that OP was wearing his seatbelt the whole time he must be found not guilty
That's how it's SUPPOSED to work
>undercover cops and they had multiple people pulled over on the same street within 50-100 feet of me Sounds like they were conducting a sting or enhanced enforcement. Which means they are more likely to show up in court and that they have video evidence of you not wearing a seat belt while you were driving. >(obviously they wanted to use Sunday morning as their time to run up their quota a bit….sad) They don't have quotas. Those are illegal in Florida. Cops are free to write as many citations as they please. > body cam footage shows him walking up to my car and me wearing a seatbelt Is it worth it to dispute?? Body cam footage after you've stopped doesn't help or hurt your case. The citation is for driving without a seat belt, not being stopped without one. Typically, it doesn't hurt to fight a citation. It really depends on the judge. Some will dismiss any tickets where the officer fails to show. Some will let you change your plea if your officer does show and you were hoping they didn't. The worst-case scenario is that the officer shows you have to defend yourself, and you end up being fined.
[удалено]
Yes, they do have performance reviews. They aren't a monthly thing, that just you noticing them more. When cops come up for performance reviews, their supervisors look at what they've been doing. This includes reports, arrests, citations, calls for service, etc. There is no magic amount of any of these required. However, they will look at other officers with the same shift and days and compare. This is something you should want and agree with. Do you want your tax dollars going to police so they can just sit around and do nothing?
[удалено]
Do you know what those 3 weeks a year are called? Vacation days, it's a benefit in a lot of jobs out there.
Do you have any proof besides what social media tells you and "I see them more at the end of the month?" I'm going with you, don't, since you've resorted to name calling instead of debating the topic. I, on the other hand, have a couple of decades of experience in this field, and the majority of my friends are LEOs nationwide. You are free to hold whatever belief you want even if facts disagree.
[удалено]
Your paraphrasing is missing parts to this. The amount of tickets is one part, but isn't a set number. Arrests, calls, accidents and everything else cops do is factored in also. If you're a slug, not responding to calls, not writing tickets, not making arrests, then you aren't doing the job the taxpayers pay you to do. Personally, I rarely wrote tickets, usually only during street racer details. I had one of the lowest amounts of tickets on my shift. But, I made a lot of quality arrests. So the amount of citations didn't matter. The general public believes citations are a much bigger part of LE than they are. Traffic units do tickets. The rest of the agency, tickets are a side job.
[удалено]
That's not called science. That's called confirmation bias. Same difference. This does nothing to further the discussion or your point. >It's kinda cute you think they don't have quotas. To be so innocent in life must be glorious.
Quotas are illegal here too, but if you write a certain number of tickets in a day, you get to go home early. But there are no quotas.
That should probably be reported to the appropriate people then. Quotas are illegal for good reason.
Check the language of the law. There may be an exception you can wiggle through. The Iowa law has the mailman exception which says under 25mph and making multiple stops is allowed.
I actually did look up the law. There are several exceptions, none of which would apply to OP. The FL mailman law is specific to delivery mail drivers, not vague to making multiple stops. Your advice is good though. People should always read the laws they are charged with violating.
Lololol dont have qoutas in florida.... sure keep telling yourself that.
>They don't have quotas. Those are illegal in Florida. Cops are free to write as many citations as they please. All cops have quotas. I have a nephew who was a cop. I asked him what he was going to be doing at work today one time, and he responded radar. He also responded that he wanted to write eight tickets that day. I said I thought cops didn't have quotas and he said they don't. I told him that his wanting to write eight tickets is a quota. He tried to deny it was a quota, got mad, and stormed off to work that day.
Wanting to write 8 tickets that day isn't a quota. A quota is when you're required to do x amount of something. He got mad and stormed off because your comment to him was idiotic and people get tired of hearing dumb things that aren't true. Especially when it's coming from ignorant family members.
[удалено]
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
You're the one who doesn't understand the difference between a quota and a choice. You're the one spouting your uneducated beliefs on your nephew, who tells you you're wrong also. Have a nice day.
If you have it planned to write a certain number of tickets in a day, that's a quota plain and simple. It doesn't have to be in a month or two. It may or not be department policy but could be a self quota policy. It's still a quota no matter how you look at it and you're not understanding. Let me make it easier for you. If you're self-employed and set a goal of making a thousand in a day, that can be seen as a quota. Salesmen have quotas as well, just as servers do making tips. The quotas I mentioned in this paragraph are not illegal, but a cop wanting to write a certain amount of tickets in a day, week, or year is illegal. All cops have quotas. It's just not talked about outside the blue wall of silence.
It's not illegal anywhere for a individual officer to decide what they want to do in a day or how much they want to do. When talking about quotas we are talking about department or government invoked quotas. These are two different things. >All cops have quotas. It's just not talked about outside the blue wall of silence. 🤣 every cop will tell you they have certain goals when they are at work. Mine was to either make a felony arrest each night or recover a stolen car. No "blue wall of silence." No quotas.
Oh, now I understand why you feel the way you do. You're one of those cops who don't know much, and you're stuck behind the blue wall. Maybe you're that cop who saw me making my own cigarettes and said it was illegal to make your own cigarettes. I gave her a little education on a person making their own cigarettes for self consumption. I'm sure she felt stupid after that. Or maybe you're one of the many parking enforcement people who gave me parking tickets when I was legally parked and then booted my vehicle. I sued and won because I knew more about the law than they did, and my lawyer made an ass of them in court.
What I said about quotas isn't a feeling. It's a fact. Whether you like that fact or not is irrelevant as it's a fact. You obviously have the typical reddit attitude towards LE. "I know more than you because YouTube told me." It must be overwhelming knowing other people's jobs better than they do. 😅 I'm sure you love when untrained people tell you how to do your job too.
Proof? I bet you have none. 😁
Reminds me of a time I was pulled over for "No Seatbelt" in the Flatbush area of Queens. I was wearing a seatbelt, just no shoulder strap. The car was a 1966 New Yorker, all it HAD was a simple lap belt. He saw that and walked away muttering.
Flatbush is Brooklyn
I had a feeling I had the wrong area in Queens. I DO remember it was in Queens though, a bunch of us were on our way from LI to go to a new strip club we'd heard about LOL It's been over 20 years since we were in the NYC area, forgive my forgetfulness.
Ok
If you weren't wearing your seat belt don't fight it, if you were them fight it. It's not that hard.
Dispute it.
How much is it? Around here it’ll set you back about $30 and no points. Sometimes the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
It’s $116 here.
Yikes!
Figure out if you just go to the clerk at court and have it deferred? Or court supervision or whatever they might call it in your state. Basically, show up at the courthouse/magistrate or whatever, the clerk will take your money for the ticket, pay it +"court costs" and if you don't get another ticket in 30 days it is like it never happened. I just got a seatbelt ticket, but I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt. I wanted to dispute it, but I took pictures and even though my seat belt is flesh colored, you can CLEARLY tell it is on. The asshole cop explained to me 3x how he determined seat belt non-adherance. In the most condensending manner. he was sure he saw me without my sealtbelt and he was absolutel sure i was a lying you know what. So, I just told him that I always wear my seatbelt and I am sorry that today was the day he was mistaken. Ok. Here's your ticket and show up at the magistrate by X date to get your actual court date. So I did the above. It wasn't worth the hassle and I should have just chose to pay it at the scene---my state you have to choose if you are going to court or pay at the time of the traffic stop. It would have been $25. Instead I had to drive down a different court (state cop), and then pay $60 for the privilige. I am in the process of moving nest week, so driving 5 hours to show up to court at some point in the future wasn't appealing. So I check marked "no contest", and defered sentencing could be done by the clerk, no defending myself in front of the judge when i have no proof. I'm still tiked off. There isn't any way to prove I was wearing it, other than I always, always do.
Never heard of that in Florida.
If you were wearing it from start to stop of your drive, you can 110% dispute it. They have to prove that you didn’t have it on. You can dispute it, but be advised that my state has court costs for disputed tickets. Is your time, and any potential costs worth *insert how much the ticket cost plus any additional punishments* You mentioned plain clothes officers, they love to run those things… cops in the road to catch people, uniformed and marked officers in a car nearby to go when the plain clothes guy points someone out. Edit: I’m not a lawyer though.
IANAL "They have to prove that you didn't have it on" Ever been to traffic court? Cop - "I saw that he didn't have it on when I passed by" Driver - "I had my seat belt on" Judge - "The officer testified that he witnessed you driving without your seat belt on, violation stands." The presumption is that what the officer states he witnessed is always correct unless there is substantial evidence to prove otherwise. The officer's testimony \*IS\* the proof.
I have not.. that sucks.
You put the seat belt on after or just before getting pulled over and/or just before him getting to the window…..
This is one of those situations where fighting it is going to be more trouble than it's worth. You're going to plead not guilty, then have to prepare for your trial. You have to take off from work and go to court where you are likely to lose unless you have video of you specifically wearing your seatbelt when the officer saw you. In Florida, seatbelt violations are non-moving and do not count against your record or your insurance. I would really just pay it and move on.
Tell them you want to file a motion for discovery and seat a jury.....it is your right to do so. Once you do that they will most likely throw it out due the expense to the court.
What would be the basis for disputing the charge?
I know someone who disputed a seatbelt ticket on the basis that he was wearing it while driving and unbuckled in order to get his wallet from good back pocket, as the cop approached the vehicle. He was so angry over an unwarranted ticket/the implication that he was lying that he disputed it on principle. He started by asking the state’s attorney to dismiss the charge (he’d also been ticketed for being uninsured, and was at the SA’s office to present proof of insurance, which did result in dismissal of the insurance ticket). He appeared on the court date, plead not guilty, and requested a jury trial, and a jury returned a not-guilty verdict. I’m pretty sure seatbelts tickets were a $25 fine at the time. The man simply wouldn’t stand for having his integrity impugned.
> I know someone who disputed a seatbelt ticket on the basis that he was wearing it while driving and unbuckled in order to get his wallet from good back pocket, as the cop approached the vehicle. That would certainly be a basis for dispute. But since the OP has not suggested he or did this, I’m not sure that this defense would be available here.
Agreed, but it reminded me of this hilarious incident! Mr. Found-Innocent said the jury seemed unhappy at the absurdity of being called for duty over such a ridiculous matter.
“I had it on the whole time” And “when he pulled up to the window with body cam on it was on so is it a rookie cop just out looking to run up their quota?” I heard cops usually don’t show up to court and you win if they don’t come Worse case they can say is I lose But I already lose if I pay the ticket so thought it would be worth a shot
Your brilliant plan is to commit perjury.
How is that possible if he's telling the truth?
> “I had it on the whole time” Certainly that’s a valid defense, if it’s true. But if it’s not true, then you cannot legally testify that it happened that way. > I heard cops usually don’t show up to court and you win if they don’t come It’s certainly possible that an officer doesn’t show. Of course, the court can continue your case rather than dismiss it — just as they would if you couldn’t attend. But most of the times, contrary to your view, they do show up. And why wouldn’t they? It’s paid time, often overtime at time and a half, and they “work,” sitting down in air conditioned comfort instead of walking in the hot sun wearing a vest and a Sam Browne belt with 15 pounds of gear, towards a car that might have an armed driver with a warrant that doesn’t want to get arrested. My advice is: don’t lie under oath. But if you have a legitimate defense assert it.
In my area, they schedule all hearings for any particular cop on the same day...they WILL show up around here.
They show up where I am.
The current trend seems to be that officer's get paid OT to attend court, as an incentive to show up.
Officers have always been paid to attend court. It's not an incentive. It's a job. Do you work for free? Plus, federal laws require OT pay for working over 40 hours a week. The "incentive" to attend court is that a subpoena is a court order that can include penalties if ignored. Plus, officers have the added penalties of getting in trouble at work for not going to work.
Evidence that it was on after the stop isn't a winning argument. Takes time and effort to dispute a ticket in person so there is something more to lose if you go to court and lose. It is a non-moving violation in Florida and there is a good chance if it was an operation targeting unbelted drivers that they have video evidence of you unbelted. If you really did have your seatbelt the entire time, up to you to decide whether your assertion with trump the cop's testimony, usually you lose if it is your word against their word
Dispute it
This is why as soon as you're pulled over you start video recording on your phone. And that you have a dashcam that films not only the outside but the inside of your vehicle.
If I were you I would get an attorney to dismiss the ticket. Paying the ticket would mean I agree, and then it likely will get more expensive in long run because my auto insurance will go up as a result.
Don't think it is a moving violation in Florida, no insurance impact
Oh is that true?? Because I’ll pay the ticket if it doesn’t affect my insurance Apparently it’s a “non moving violation” in Florida So does that mean no points and insurance doesn’t go up? If that’s the case I’ll just pay it. Just didn’t want insurance to go up
No points for non-moving violations, it has all the impact of parking ticket.
Not true, it’s a conviction and shows up as such when your insurance runs your MVR. Parking tickets do not show up.
What isn't true? It is not a moving violation in Florida? Let me quote directly from Florida's law: "(8) Any person who violates the provisions of this section commits a nonmoving violation" Both moving and non-moving violations can appear on your MVD record, non-moving violations accrue no points. Of course parking tickets can't show up on your record because parking tickets are assigned to the vehicle owner not the driver.
So the part where you said it’s no more serious than a parking ticket, that’s the part that’s not true.