Improper backing

[gr8day2play]

Jurisdiction

Florida

I am in Florida. I received a ticket for improper backing because I backed out of my driveway and bumped into a parked car. There was minor damage. There were no witnesses. I simply self-reported it to the neighbor, and discovered that the car belonged to their nephew who was working with the husband of my husband/wife neighbors that day and parked his car on our street. They called him to the scene after I told the wife what happened. I offered to pay for repairs out of pocket, but they chose to report it under insurance and call the police to file a report. So, I received an improper backing ticket. A few things to point out is that I have engaged an attorney and entered a plea of not guilty. Let's make the assumption that it goes all the way to trial. In Florida (per my attorney), accident reports and all communications between the police officer, me (defendant), and the owner of the car (victim), are considered to be privileged communications and can not be entered into evidence. Florida has this law to promote honesty in reporting of these types of things, so the only thing the cop can say at trial is what he saw, which is that he saw a car with slight damage, a truck (mine) with no damage parked in my driveway, and that if the truck was backed out of the driveway, it would be consistent with the damage to the car. The victim would be subpoenaed by the clerk of courts, but even if he showed up on the court date, all he can testify to is when he arrive at the scene, he saw that his car was damaged and that I told the wife of his uncle that I backed into the car. He can't say that he witnessed the bump to his car. As I said, there were zero witnesses. Having said all of this, I think the chances are good he won't even show up because by that time, his car will have been fixed for months. Would anyone care to weigh-in on my chances for dismissal of the charge at court?

 

[adjusterjack]

Would anyone care to weigh-in on my chances for dismissal of the charge at court?

I have engaged an attorney

Your attorney is the only one who can weigh in intelligently about your chances of dismissal.

Just understand that, while all that information may not be admissible in court, your insurance company can use it to pay the claim and surcharge the policy.

Beating the ticket doesn't mean you weren't negligent and that's what the insurance issue is all about.

 

[justblue]

I am in Florida. I received a ticket for improper backing because I backed out of my driveway and bumped into a parked car. There was minor damage. There were no witnesses. I simply self-reported it to the neighbor, and discovered that the car belonged to their nephew who was working with the husband of my husband/wife neighbors that day and parked his car on our street. They called him to the scene after I told the wife what happened. I offered to pay for repairs out of pocket, but they chose to report it under insurance and call the police to file a report. So, I received an improper backing ticket. A few things to point out is that I have engaged an attorney and entered a plea of not guilty. Let's make the assumption that it goes all the way to trial. In Florida (per my attorney), accident reports and all communications between the police officer, me (defendant), and the owner of the car (victim), are considered to be privileged communications and can not be entered into evidence. Florida has this law to promote honesty in reporting of these types of things, so the only thing the cop can say at trial is what he saw, which is that he saw a car with slight damage, a truck (mine) with no damage parked in my driveway, and that if the truck was backed out of the driveway, it would be consistent with the damage to the car. The victim would be subpoenaed by the clerk of courts, but even if he showed up on the court date, all he can testify to is when he arrive at the scene, he saw that his car was damaged and that I told the wife of his uncle that I backed into the car. He can't say that he witnessed the bump to his car. As I said, there were zero witnesses. Having said all of this, I think the chances are good he won't even show up because by that time, his car will have been fixed for months. Would anyone care to weigh-in on my chances for dismissal of the charge at court?

So you plan on perjuring yourself in court?

 

[adjusterjack]

In Florida (per my attorney), accident reports and all communications between the police officer, me (defendant), and the owner of the car (victim), are considered to be privileged communications and can not be entered into evidence. Florida has this law

What law is that? Cite the statute number for me.

I find it hard to believe that the car owner can't get up in court and say "He (pointing to you) knocked on my door and said he backed into my car."

It's true that the officer can only testify to what he saw and not what people told him. But that has nothing to do with privilege, that's the hearsay rule.

It's also true that what you tell your lawyer is privileged and he cannot divulge it without your consent.

But the car owner is not a part of any of that. I think you may have misunderstood what your lawyer told you.

 

[Red Kayak]

I think the chances are good he won't even show up because by that time, his car will have been fixed for months.

Given the attitude you have displayed here, I'd say the chances are better that he will show up just on principle.

You hit a stationary object. A BIG stationary object. Heaven help the mailboxes and children in your neighborhood.

 

[zddoodah]

In Florida (per my attorney), accident reports and all communications between the police officer, me (defendant), and the owner of the car (victim), are considered to be privileged communications and can not be entered into evidence.

Bafflingly, that's (partly) true. Section 316.066(d)(4) of the Florida Statutes provides as follows:

"Except as specified in this subsection, each crash report made by a person involved in a crash and any statement made by such person to a law enforcement officer for the purpose of completing a crash report required by this section shall be without prejudice to the individual so reporting. Such report or statement may not be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal."

But there is an important exception in the next sentence: "However, subject to the applicable rules of evidence, a law enforcement officer at a criminal trial may testify as to any statement made to the officer by the person involved in the crash if that person's privilege against self-incrimination is not violated."

So...the report is inadmissible. "Any statement made . . . to a law enforcement officer for the purpose of completing a crash report" is inadmissible. However, "any statement made to [an] officer by the person involved in the crash" is admissible as long as the self-incrimination privilege is not violated. Depending on how this is interpreted, the exception could virtually negate the rule. Also, the privilege does not include communications between you and the owner of the car.

The victim would be subpoenaed by the clerk of courts, but even if he showed up on the court date, all he can testify to is when he arrive at the scene, he saw that his car was damaged and that I told the wife of his uncle that I backed into the car.

As indicated above, this is wrong.

Also, your insurance records could be subpoenaed.

Would anyone care to weigh-in on my chances for dismissal of the charge at court?

Yup. The chances are virtually nil. That said, you hired a lawyer (presumably at a cost that well exceeds any fine that might result from a conviction), and that lawyer is in the best position to opine about the outcome of the case.

So you plan on perjuring yourself in court?

More likely the OP intends to exercise his/her fundamental constitutional right to remain silent and not testify.

It's true that the officer can only testify to what he saw and not what people told him. But that has nothing to do with privilege, that's the hearsay rule.

The officer could not testify as to what the owner of the car told him, but he could testify as to what the OP said (subject to the law discussed above). Party admissions are probably the most significant exception to the rule against hearsay.