Winning or Losing Is All in the Details

When a client comes to me with a traffic ticket, most people assume the fight is won or lost on the road — based on what the driver did or didn't do. But experienced traffic ticket defense is often decided somewhere else entirely: in the paperwork. A recent red light case I handled is a perfect illustration of why details matter, and why a careful read of a citation can be the difference between a finding of liable and a dismissal.

It is worth noting at the outset that in Nevada, traffic tickets are civil infractions, not criminal charges. The State is the Plaintiff, and the driver is the defendant. There is no "prosecution" in the criminal sense — the State bears the burden of proving its case, but the proceedings are civil in nature.

The Citation on Its Face

My client was cited for running a red light in violation of NRS 484B.307, which prohibits a driver from proceeding through an intersection against a red signal. On its face, the charge seemed straightforward. But when I reviewed the citation carefully, something stood out immediately.

At the top of the ticket, the officer wrote that my client was on Las Vegas Boulevard making a left turn onto Flamingo Road. At the bottom of the same ticket, the officer wrote that my client was headed west on Flamingo Road at Las Vegas Boulevard.

There is a fundamental problem with those two statements: Las Vegas Boulevard runs north and south. If my client was traveling westbound on Flamingo, he was not turning from Las Vegas Boulevard onto Flamingo — he was already on Flamingo. These two descriptions cannot both be true. They describe two different scenarios at the same intersection.

The Officer's Statement Only Added Confusion

In an attempt to clarify, the officer submitted a supplemental written statement. Rather than resolving the inconsistency, it introduced a third version of events. In that statement, the officer described my client as headed southbound on Las Vegas Boulevard and turning left to go eastbound on Flamingo.

My client, for his part, was prepared to testify that he was in fact headed northbound on Las Vegas Boulevard and turned left to go westbound on Flamingo.

So, across the citation and the officer's supplemental statement, there were now at least three conflicting accounts of where my client was and which direction he was traveling. Each version placed him at a different approach to the intersection, potentially running a different signal entirely.

The Legal Standard: More Likely Than Not

In Nevada traffic cases, the burden of proof rests with the State — in this context, represented by the citing officer. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the court must find it more likely than not that the violation occurred as alleged. This is sometimes called the "51%" standard: if the evidence does not tip the scales in favor of the State, the case must be dismissed.

Due process also requires that a citation provide the defendant with fair and sufficient notice of the specific conduct alleged. This is rooted in the fundamental principle that a person cannot mount a defense against charges they cannot clearly identify. Nevada courts have consistently recognized that a charging document — including a traffic citation — must be sufficiently definite so that a defendant knows what he is accused of doing.

When a citation is internally inconsistent to the point that the court cannot determine which act or which signal is at issue, it fails to meet that basic standard.

The Court Agreed — Before I Could Even Argue

I was prepared to walk through each inconsistency methodically and argue that the citation, as written, was fatally defective. But I did not get the chance to begin.

Before I could present a single argument, Judge David Brown noted the inconsistencies himself. He observed that the multiple, contradictory versions of the facts made it impossible for him to determine which red light — if any — had allegedly been run. Given that the court could not resolve which version of events was accurate, it could not find by a preponderance of the evidence that any specific violation occurred.

The case was dismissed.

What This Case Teaches Us

This outcome was not the result of luck. It was the result of careful review of every line of the citation before ever setting foot in the courtroom.

Most drivers who receive a traffic ticket glance at it briefly, note the fine, and either pay it or show up to court unprepared. What they often miss is that officers write citations quickly, sometimes under pressure, and errors and contradictions appear more frequently than you might expect. Those details — a wrong direction, an inconsistent location description, a misidentified signal — can render a citation legally insufficient.

The law requires the State to prove its case. When the evidence the State relies on contradicts itself, the case cannot meet that burden. A skilled defense attorney knows where to look, what questions to ask, and how to bring those inconsistencies to the court's attention.

Details matter. In this case, they made all the difference.

Have a Traffic Ticket in Clark County?

Contact Cap & Kudler — Las Vegas Traffic Ticket Attorney — for a review of your citation. A careful look at the details could change your outcome.