(a) On approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle using visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
I can't promise you will win, but I can tell you how to defend yourself.
1. Do not admit to slowing only 10 mph below the speed limit. If you do, then you're guilty, no matter what other mitigating circumstances there may have been at the time.
2. The officer could not possibly have been able to obtain an accurate measurement of your speed, because this was an emergency situation -- so, the officer was almost certainly guessing at your speed. This puts you in a better position to state your speed, than the officer, and you may want to bring this to the court's attention (unless, of course, the officer tesifies that he/she was using radar/lidar, in which case, the question becomes: "Considering the emergency nature of the circumstances, how is it that you chose to set up to use a speed measurement device, rather than to help with the emergency?" In other words, you want to make the officer look ridiculous, so that your closing argument can be, "Your honor, under the circumstances, there is simply no way that the officer could have measured my speed, and if he/she was, then he/she was derelict in performing his/her duties as an officer in an emergency. The officer is clearly inventing a story, and his/her testimony should be given little if any evidentiary weight. The defendant was in a far better position to know his/her speed at the time of the alleged violation, and should be found not guilty."
That's how I'd do it.
Hope this helps.
Traffic judges are bored. If you are convincing, and you can wake up the judge to the possibility that there may have been some legal shennanigans, then you might be able to get the court's attention. You could really play it up, that this entire event was entirely crafted as an exercise in revenue generation, in a manner so that no driver could possibly avoid violating the law.
Personally, I like my first argument better, because it calls into question whether or not the officer actually had any idea of your speed, and that you are testifying flatly that you were not violating the law. But, you're the one who must try to make your case, so you need to be comfortable with it.
Best of luck!
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).