Should this be enough to get a speeding ticket dismissed?

So, hypothetically, suppose one were to get cited for speeding (in a known speed trap, which makes it all the more annoying...). For purposes of this example, assume this is in Pennsylvania. At least in PA, if you contest a traffic citation, there is no discovery available to you (at least, not at the magistrate level - if you're unhappy with what happens there, you can request a de novo trial in the "real" court, where I believe that discovery is available...). So what is on the citation is all the evidence you'd have available to examine prior to your hearing.

On a PA traffic citation, if you're cited for speeding, there's a space on the citation where the officer is supposed to indicate what method was used to determine your speed (e.g., radar, LIDAR, VASCAR, pacing, etc.). Suppose that the officer was in a hurry, in that the speed trap was producing so many "victims" that there were a lot of tickets to write, and in his haste, left this completely blank. So there is no information at all about what method of speed determination was used.

Would this in itself be enough to get the ticket dismissed? Could one not say, "In the absence of discovery, this is all the evidence that was made available to me - and the absence of the method of speed determination has made it impossible for me to prepare a defense, so I request that the citation be dismissed"?

Are the fines in PA still as expensive as they were when I lived there? I once was cited for 58 mph in a 35 mph zone and that fine was $144.00 and that was several years ago.

The actual fines are relatively cheap - it's all the "costs and fees" that are added on to them that jack up the total. As a point of reference, this hypothetical example I'm referring to involves being cited for doing 56 in a 35 zone, and the total due would be $164.00 (of which only $67.00 is the actual fine, the rest is costs and mandatory fees...).

No kind of legal expert here, but I would think if you show up to court and point out this blank, the judge/magistrate will drop it without even blinking.

He might give the cop a dirty look. If the cop shows up. Of course, if he doesn't, you're off the hook, too.

You just have to convince the judge.
I would show up and contest it regardless, there's a good chance of getting off on the technicality or the cop not showing up.

If the judge doesn't find in your favor you just pay on the way out the door, rather than pleading no contest and mailing it in. You're gonna pay one way or the other and have nothing to lose by showing up at court.

The fine is usually double in court but I would still try if winning saves you on insurance.
Also note you may have to appear in court and plea....and THEN come back for a trial.

Stop by the clerk and ask and take notes. Then ask the prosecutor and when she tells you a different plan, you can show her how effed up the cop was and how effed up the clerk was and she'll be embarrassed and offer you a plea for a burned out bulb. I say she because prosecutors always seem to be so hot a effable.

That's what I did when the Louisiana trooper gave me a court date for Jan 2012 in Nov 2012, misspelled my name, and had my address wrong. And the clerk told me the plan for court (don't have to come twice and post court bond). (different than the actual procedure) When I told the prosecutor in pre-arraignment that I'd driven over 600,000 miles and never been stopped for failing to yield, there was no wreck nor screeching of tires. I asked her how credible the trooper was going to be as a witness when he wrote a court date in the past, spelled my name wrong, and got the address wrong. Is he really able to determine I didn't yield? She offered me a non moving vialation and I took it. I would have one in court but wasn't going to sit there another 4 hours then drive 5 hours each way for the real hearing....to prove a point.

PA has some strange ways of dealing with traffic citations...

When you get a citation, you basically have to mail in your plea (and your money...). When you mail in your plea, there are only two possible pleas, "Guilty", or "Not Guilty" - it's not possible to plead "No Contest" (which is basically saying, "I'm not admitting that I did this, but I concede that you have enough evidence to make it look like I did"....). So, effectively, you either have to deny that you did the violation, or admit that you did it. There's also a rarely used option where you can show up at traffic court unannounced (I guess - because the only way to get a hearing date is by mailing in a plea), and enter a plea in front of the magistrate, and get your hearing date set that way. You might be able to plead "No Contest" there. I'm not personally aware of anyone who's ever done that, though.

The total fine/costs/etc. is listed on the citation. If you want to plead guilty, you sign the form in the appropriate spot, and mail it in with full payment. If you want to plead not guilty, you sign the form in a different spot, plus you still have to mail in full payment of the fine - plus an extra amount for additional "court costs". If the magistrate finds you not guilty, or reduces the fine, or something like that, you get a refund later (though as far as I know, they refund only the fine - there's no refund on the additional "court costs" involved with requesting a hearing, as far as I know - so they get money from you one way or the other...) But you can't even get a hearing without paying the full fine, plus the additional costs, in advance. I guess they figure, if you don't show up for the hearing, they find you guilty, keep your money (that they already have), and it's done with. Plus, of course, they get to keep your money in the bank and earn interest on it between the time you send it in, and the time of your hearing...

Traffic cases at the magistrate level are not tried by a prosecutor - the officer acts as prosecutor. Sadly, no hot young female prosecutors that I'm aware of. ;-) Though it's funny - they changed the law in PA a while back, regarding the cop not showing up (because cops weren't showing up, a lot...). The position currently is that it is not the officer who is your accuser - it is the "police department", per se - and that as long as any representative of the police department is there to testify on behalf of the police department, then that is fine - it does not need to be the actual officer who wrote the citation. Now, I believe there are magistrates who will still toss tickets if the ticketing officer doesn't show - but technically, they don't need to. In the case of my example, I don't think it's very likely that the cop won't show anyway - like I said, this was a speed trap, they wrote a lot of tickets, and they're probably going to have all the hearings on those tickets on the same day (so the cops involved only have to come to court once).

Another possible technicality on a ticket like this, is that PA law specifies that for this type of violation, if a hearing is requested, proceedings must be commenced within 30 days of the date of the violation. Again, particularly because this example is a speed trap scenario and there might be lots of people requesting hearings, which they're probably going to try to schedule all on the same day - one possible tactic might be to wait until the last possible moment to mail in the plea, and hope the hearing date for that speed trap is already "full" and they have to pick another date just for you. So, either the cop might not show up (in which case the magistrate might be inclined to dismiss the ticket), or they might get stuck scheduling you after the 30 days (in which case the magistrate would, theoretically, be actually obligated to dismiss the ticket due to lack of timely prosecution). Or, of course - they might schedule you for the same day as all the other people from that speed trap, knowing full well that they're never going to get to you, and then continue your hearing until a later date - but for purposes of timely prosecution, they will have met their obligation since they "commenced proceedings" within the allowed time...

I'd be relocating. Seems a pretty fucked up system there in many ways.