Traffic Violation Question - Please help!

[eflores03]

I was recently in an accident because of bad weather conditions. At the time of the accident, I wasn't given a ticket or anything and the officer even said that "there was really no report to file" and added that these accidents were happening all night and that I shouldn't worry. (My three passengers can attest to this.) However, a week later, I get a ticket in the mail for $115 saying that I was driving "at a speed greater than was reasonable for conditions existing."

I was shocked to see the ticket, considering the officer did not mention anything of it at the time of the accident. I am angry that the officer did not inform me of making any violations and instead chose to send me a notice of the violation in the mail.

I just want to know if what the officer did violated any law. I mean was it OK for the officer to lead me to think I did nothing wrong and not give me a ticket on the spot? Or is this a common occurrence?

Because of what this officer did, I feel like I shouldn't have to pay the ticket and should instead schedule a court date? My question is: Is this worth it? Or should I just pay the ticket?

Please, any information/advice would be extremely helpful.

Thanks for reading,
EHF

 

[Scooterdog]

Cops lie all the time. Po-lice are trained to do two things, 1-lie, 2-intimidate.

You can fight the ticket. I would. Did he have your speed? No. It's a bogus ticket. They have that in Montana as well. I would never pay a ticket that they couldn't prove, and they can't prove anything. Other than the weather was bad.

Chances are if you fight it, the cop won't show up. If he does, one could have a hay-day with him on the stand. Fight it, the government doesn't need to be profiting off of bad weather.

 

[seniorjudge]

eflores, if you had been driving properly you would not have had a wreck.

 

[Scooterdog]

eflores, if you had been driving properly you would not have had a wreck.

What a complete crock of sh#t. That's really good advice judge. What a peace of work. When you want to contribute, or actually produce some law, that would be great.

(By the way judge, people have noticed your coment on being arrested at home, which I proved you dead wrong.)

Propaganda at it's best.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

What a complete crock of sh#t. That's really good advice judge. What a peace of work. When you want to contribute, or actually produce some law, that would be great.

(By the way judge, people have noticed your coment on being arrested at home, which I proved you dead wrong.)

Propaganda at it's best.

Scooterdog - please be respectful. We shouldn't have to try to defeat the filter here.

With regard to what was written in this post, I have to say that I'm more inclined to agree with the Judge. Take a look at what is being stated here - not that the driver wasn't driving too fast given weather conditions, only that the officer allegedly said that he didn't need to report it because of all the accidents.

My guess? There may have been some misunderstanding with regard to what the officer meant or said. That still doesn't change the fact that the Judge was right - it seems that the officer pulled over the driver because he thought they were driving too fast. None of us were there to say whether there was a clear misunderstanding and whether the cop "lied" as some do but many don't. Regardless, there is no excuse here in court, which is why the poster wonders whether he should just pay. Going into court and saying "I was going too fast but the cop said he wouldn't report it" isn't going to cut it.

 

[Scooterdog]

My guess? There may have been some misunderstanding with regard to what the officer meant or said. That still doesn't change the fact that the Judge was right - it seems that the officer pulled over the driver because he thought they were driving too fast.

Sounds good, until here.

First of all, who is the police "officer" to be handing out legal advice? I don't think they have enough knowledge.

If the office is pulling people over because he "thinks" they are comitting crimes, needs to be removed from public duty ASAP!

thelawprofessor:

You know they can only do this if you let them. It is not within the constitution of any state. What a cop "thinks" is not reasonable cause. You KNOW THIS!

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Sounds good, until here.

First of all, who is the police "officer" to be handing out legal advice? I don't think they have enough knowledge.

If the office is pulling people over because he "thinks" they are comitting crimes, needs to be removed from public duty ASAP!
thelawprofessor:

You know they can only do this if you let them. It is not within the constitution of any state. What a cop "thinks" is not reasonable cause. You KNOW THIS!

You're letting your emotions about authority get the better of you.

Law officers make judgment calls every day and are not only allowed to, but need dictates they must do so, e.g. "reasonable cause to arrest." There is no law that can cover every situation perfectly. There is a checks and balances system in place (even though, like everything, nothing is perfect) that hopefully ensures that there needs to be caution before taking action and the requirements are clearly spelled out.

It's common sense that the law has to govern hazardous road conditions and that people and officers of the law need to make judgment calls. Whether or not it was the right call can be decided by a judge. At times there is a gray area but it certainly doesn't seem to the case here. The officer can clearly make a judgment call that driving 65 MPH during blizzard conditions was in violation of a motor vehicle law. As an example, I'll give you Florida Statute 316.183 that motorists must obey:

"No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing"

As I said, I think you're letting your feelings about vigilant officers cloud your judgment. By his omission and focus on the reporting aspect of the summons, even the poster seems to concede that he may have been driving recklessly given the road conditions. And that's the point that both myself and the Judge have been able to seize - as would a judge adjudicating this matter. A wrong was committed here and the defendant is looking for a loophole that doesn't undermine his culpability.