More and More Drivers Challenge Their Traffic Tickets

During an era of controversial, high-profile, televised trials, replete with grandstanding judges, prevaricating police and long-winded lawyers, a recent hearing at the Pasadena courthouse was a refreshing change.

The trial lasted 90 seconds.

Defendant George Bogosian, who was accused of speeding, never said a word.

A Sierra Madre police officer testified that he could not recall whether his patrol car had been parked when he aimed his radar gun at Bogosian’s car.

Bogosian’s attorney, Lee Rittenburg, then requested that the judge dismiss the case.

The judge granted Rittenburg’s request because the accuracy of the radar reading was then in question.

“Gee, is that it?” Bogosian asked Rittenburg, looking incredulous as he wandered into the hallway. “I was expecting some kind of Perry Mason scene.”

“That’s it,” said Rittenburg, one of only a few Southern California lawyers who specialize in traffic cases.

Rittenburg extended his hand. “Congratulations. You won.”

*

Police in California write more tickets today than ever for speeding, traffic experts say, and an increasing percentage of people challenge their tickets.

When Court Commissioner Collette Serio first heard traffic cases a decade ago, she presided over about 10 trials a day; now her day at Pasadena Municipal Court is packed with 20 to 25 cases, from diamond lane infractions to red light violations.

More people fight their tickets, she said, because the cost of tickets and insurance rates for violators have risen sharply. Also, offenders used to be able to attend traffic school an unlimited number of times; now it’s restricted to once every 18 months.

Last year, the California Highway Patrol gave drivers almost a million speeding tickets, which is about 165,000 more than officers wrote in 1996. The increase happened primarily because officers began using radar on freeways three years ago, CHP officials say.

With the proliferation of court television shows, Serio said, the courtroom is not as mysterious or intimidating as in the past.

“A lot of people simply want to be heard; they want their day in court,” said Serio, who hears only traffic cases one day a week. “For some, they have a point to make. It’s a matter of principle.”

Principle was certainly the factor for Bogosian. He paid a $500 legal fee to fight a $77 ticket.

Bogosian, 69, is a retired Arcadia middle school history teacher and he always has been an advocate of exercising one’s constitutional rights. He is well aware of the 6th Amendment, which guarantees that the accused has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

“Maybe teaching history and knowing the Constitution make me speak out more,” he said. “And in this case, I didn’t feel I should have to pay the ticket. I didn’t think I was speeding. I wanted a chance to prove it.”

At 6:47 a.m. Nov. 4, Bogosian was pulled over, accused of driving 54 mph in a 35 mph zone. It was his third moving violation since he began driving in 1946. He decided that hiring an attorney was his best chance to beat the ticket.

“It did cost me more money than the ticket cost,” Bogosian said. “Part of it was, I didn’t want my insurance rates to go up. But the main reason was the principle of the thing. Just paying the ticket would be an acknowledgment that I was wrong. I felt I was right.”

Only a fraction of offenders in traffic court hire attorneys, Serio said. But defendants such as Bogosian win about half their cases, Serio estimated, compared with about 25% of those without attorneys.

*

While Rittenburg was a student at Loyola Law School, some classmates wanted the big bucks of corporate law. Others sought the high-pressure world of criminal law. A few philanthropic students planned careers in public interest law. Rittenburg, however, decided to ply his trade in the lowly traffic courts.

Rittenburg, who wore a black suit, off-white shirt and blue and black print silk tie to defend Bogosian, approaches his cases with the intensity of a defense lawyer preparing a three-strikes case. When a reporter asked to observe a brief conference between Bogosian and Rittenburg before the trial, he snapped, “That’s attorney-client privilege!”

Earlier, Rittenburg delivered an impassioned discourse on why people who are in the right should fight their traffic tickets. He concluded by intoning somberly: “People have died to ensure our constitutional rights. I say: ‘People, exercise those rights!’ ”

Rittenburg, a sole practitioner whose firm, Traffic Defenders, is based at his Alhambra home, charges $500 for standard infractions in local cases. He handles about 200 cases a year, including misdemeanor offenses such as drunk driving and driving with a suspended license. Bogosian considered the money for Rittenburg’s fee well spent.

“At first, I was wondering how much time and attention an attorney would put into this case. . . . This is, after all, just a traffic case,” Bogosian said. “But he was so serious and well-prepared, I could tell he was going all out for me. He’s a competitor and he really wanted to win the case.”

Rittenburg decided to specialize in traffic cases when he fought his own speeding ticket during law school. He won, but as he watched others lose winnable cases, he discovered his niche.

“I think this appealed to me because I didn’t like the responsibility of taking cases where hundreds of thousands of dollars--people’s nest eggs--were riding on my decisions. I didn’t want to take cases where I’d lose sleep because somebody could go to jail because of my actions in the courtroom.”

Rittenburg, 45, said the easiest type of ticket to win is a radar speeding ticket on a street. The officer is required to bring to court an engineering and traffic survey, and if the officer does not bring the survey, Rittenburg wins. If the survey was not conducted within the past five years, Rittenburg wins. (To enforce speed limits by radar, state law mandates that cities have traffic and engineering surveys--which are valid for five years--that scientifically determine what the appropriate speed limit should be.)

Rittenburg also might argue that if the radar device had not been calibrated recently, the reading is inaccurate. He might attempt to convince the judge that electrical interference from power lines distorted the radar reading or the officer mistakenly registered the speed of another car.

While representing a client charged with driving 54 mph in a 35-mph zone may not be as critical as arguing a murder case, Rittenburg contends that his work is significant.

“The basic principles of my cases are the same as in big-time trials like the O.J. Simpson case,” he said. “The people have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden of proof is the same, whether a defendant is accused of speeding or murder.”