An issue has arisen relative to the terms of conditions of a Class C "Deferred" for a speeding ticket. In particular, the condition was that the person "not be issued" any other traffic citation. Case in question involved the Defendant receiving another citation one week after receiving the deferred. In doing some research, I can't find any prohibition for a condition that a person "not be issued" another traffic citation. Normal conditions of probation is that the person "not commit" another offense. Judge's position is that this condition is OK. I just have a problem in revoking a deferred for simply receiving a citation. Anyone dealt with this issue before?

Revoke him, lock him up and throw away the key! Oh, I guess you can't do that. Why are you having a (moral/ethical?) problem revoking someone on a ticket when they get caught once again a week later? Seems like it would be easy to just say OK Dude, time to pay the county some money!

Am I being overly picky in preferring a conviction to the issuing of a ticket? Before revoking the deferred (which I have done, and will probably do again), I would want either a conviction on the subsequent ticket or enough information to be certain that the individual violated the law...

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney

If you are truly anguished, set the Motion for Disposition (Since Deferred for Calls Cs is actually Deferred Disposition and not Deferred Adjudication) for a hearing, call in the new ticketing officer, and elicit testimony to show that the offense actually occurred.

You may have a distinction without a difference. At a hearing the judge only has to find by a preponderance that the violation occurred. For the citation to be admissible, you would have to show that the evidence was not obtained in violation of the law. For the officer to properly cite the defendant, he must have probable cause, which you must demonstrate at the hearing. Therefore, you must demonstrate at the hearing to adjudicate that the officer had what amounts to a preponderance of the evidence to believe the defendant was guilty of the new traffic violation before he wrote the ticket. In a contested hearing then, your burden is about the same whether the condition is "don't get cited" or "don't commit the offense." Right?

The judge should change the condition for future cases. The defendant must engage in misconduct before he can be revoked; simply receiving a ticket, which only indicates the opinion of an officer,is not enough. It effectively delegates the question of revocation to the officer issuing the new citation.

Let me add a few more facts: When the new ticket landed in the same court wherein deferred was given for the first ticket, the Court revoked the Deferred. No hearing. Defendant (and myself) find out that the deferred was revoked more about 30 days after the conviction went final.
And yes, call me old-fashioned, but I do have a problem imposing any penal sanction simply because someone was accused of an offense.