[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

Now that I've thought about it some more the written warning may actually help me ( the one for low speed vehicle. The officer verbally told me I was in violation of the minimum speed law. At this point, I don't know that law to exist. He then gave me a written warning for operating a low speed vehicle on a road with a >35 mph speed limit. I don't have a low speed vehicle, hence, I obviously didn't commit the infraction he gave me a written warning for--nor could I have.

Irrelevant. You're charged with impeding traffic, not with driving a low speed vehicle.

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

So I can point out:
1) The officer verbally told me I was in violation of a law that did not exist.
2) The officer issued me a warning for an infraction I did not commit, and was incapable of committing.

Irrelevant. You're charged with impeding traffic, not with driving a low speed vehicle.

Bottom line. Were you or weren't you going 10 mph in a 60 mph zone? Once that's established from the officer's testimony and yours, you've got maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of convincing a judge that driving at 10 mph (or 28 mph) on a 60 mph road in the dark, with dry roads and no hazards is a safe thing to do.

With attorney's fees at ~$175/hour, hiring an attorney to fight the what, $105? fine doesn't make a whole lot of sense.