So heres my case, does it have any validity? Im argueing that the officer did not have a justified view of where and if my car stopped or not, which it did.

This is the officers view of the stop sign i "disobeyed"

Another possible viewpoint, just so i can say that he cant see regardless

As you can see he cannot see the line where i must stop

As close are possible (which he wasnt) to the intersection, the officer still cannot see because of glare. (I took this the very next day, exact same time)

This is the actual intersection, the officer is hidden in the side road. Notice the crosswalk and the stop sign line, and how they could easily be confused from the officers viewpoint

So what are my chances of winning this case?

The one photo did not show up. (last one)

Which direction is your vehicle travelling? (across the picture right to left) or with the picture.

Just from that I can easily identified the post (i believe is for the stop sign for the right to left traffic), obviously never been at that spot. If I was there I would indicate in notes where the stop line is in relation to that post. If directly beside, very clear to see when a vehicle stops or not.

From the first few pictures my vehicle was traveling right to left. Although the post is visible, glare can alter the degree at which things are viewed and could possible obstruct the officers view. Is this a valid arguement?

think if the cruiser is parked at the 3rd tree/driveway area, proper stopping area is very visible. Farther back with the 3rd tree in the photo, it appears tree 2 might block the area slightly. That is just based on what your photos show and in no way can I confirm what the particular officer saw. You will have to ask where the officer was, other than that, it is all speculation.

After the DA is done asking questions you get a turn.

eg

At what time did the officer check to make sure the sign was there?

Did they check to see if it was still there at the time of the ticket?

Sounds like they can prove the pole was there.(no offense)

hwybear lead you to the answer.

DA gets to rebut it.

Is it in your discloser?(if not not sure what they can do)

Cheers

Viper1

If your entire defence is based in an attempt to persuade the court that someone (officer) must have necessarily seen what you suggest he had to see - you in trouble.

The officer is likely to testify that he had unobstructed clear view of the intersection, including its stop line and the sign itself. Thats it.

I would suggest to concentrate on your own defence rather then attempting to demonstrate to court what officer "must have seen" on the day in question. Prove by inference in this case may not be your best bet.

So what approach do you suggest i take?

Basically, if you are sure that you stopped your vehicle and there was no hazard created when you moved forward, you'd testify to that. If your testimony is rock-solid and not shaken on cross-examination, the JP may find you not guilty. What usually happens is that the officer's testimony is clear, concise and credible, and a defendant's is not. However, if you are sure you stopped, then testify in court. The odds of winning, though, are absolutely not guaranteed.

Other than that, you could look at plea-bargaining to a lesser charge. There might be some minor technicalities that you could get this quashed on, but I'm not really sure any of those are available (fatal error on ticket, improper disclosure, unreasonable delay of trial, etc).

But... I agree with Traffic Law. Can you prove the EXACT position of the officer and his visibility? Probably not with any certainty. Remember, the officer only has to testify that he had an unobstructed view. If he can't recall his exact position, that's still not sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt.