Originally posted by Maxmars
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. (Law) An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design
The question now becomes, a) is it illegal, and b) was this a 'common' agreement between law enforcement and the judiciary?
Spot on, you have hit on the one thing that even the OP didn't post about. And that there must have been mutual understanding between the judiciary and law enforcement for him to do that on the ticket. The judge must have been a co-conspirator in knowing what this is, and for him or her to have information that the defendant doesn't is communication with one party. It's called Ex Parte Communications
from Litigants, the judge is a dolt and she was caught red handed with the cop and that is why she put it on hold. You see if she would have thrown it out, then their may be more tickets like that (you can bet your last dollar their is) and people would want their ticket thrown out also. And on top of that if there's an investigation Federally or by the State, then one or more of the cops or somebody in that court may turn state evidence and say the judge do this all the time and/or the cops and judge know this is a procedure. In essence this judge and other judges could face disbarment and/or prosecution over each and every case of Ex Parte Communications with one side over the other.
The court is supposed to take this seriously, but if there was a mutual understanding from both the judge and judiciary and the cops then it would explain why the cop can make a smiley face or frown or A**hole pictoral and the judge would understand what he meant and wanted. That is a conspiracy for sure.