Too fast for conditions...and reckless driving?

[nik96]

(Colorado) A few days ago I was pulled over on the highway(US-36) in a 55mph zone while doing 51. It had snowed earlier that day and the roads had been plowed and sanded. The particular stretch where the violation took place was, in my opinion, clear with snow drift on the shoulders. When I was pulled over, the officer explained that he felt the speed limit for the conditions was 30mph and that 51 was excessive. While this is a matter of discretion, I cannot argue with an officer's decision. What I dont understand is why he decided to charge me with reckless driving as well as the original offense. The exchange was cordial, I was polite, there was no mention of a roadside or suspicion of alcohol and he did not tell me i was swerving or driving erratically/recklessly. I don't understand why such a major traffic offense was tossed in with the only real offense.

I did speak with a lawyer briefly and he felt like the charge was highly unusual. I'm not trying to bash LEO's or say I did nothing wrong, just trying to gather some info/opinions from LEO's and citizens. Thanks.

 

[silver03svt]

So, just to be clear, you received TWO tickets or was it just one?

 

[nik96]

1 ticket, two violations...for the same offense.

 

[Outlaw99]

always over charge because once its plead down, or you are offered something lessor by the DA...then what actually sticks is what you should have been originally charged with to begin with.

cop trick #1

 

[silver03svt]

1 ticket, two violations...for the same offense.

Well if it is like VA, it is more than likely only 1 charge. Here, Too Fast For Conditions is an act of Reckless Driving. The ticket has to have the language of Reckless Driving and then the description of the recklessness which would be the too fast for conditions.

 

[RedRocketMike]

You can argue with his decision, in court. Did you take pictures or video of the road while you were both stopped there to help validate later on that you were driving a safe speed? I would print out copies of the weather from that day so you have something indicating how long it had been since snowfall. Does the ticket indicate your speed?

 

[FATlaws]

always over charge because once its plead down, or you are offered something lessor by the DA...then what actually sticks is what you should have been originally charged with to begin with.

cop trick #1

So you're not really all for innocent until proven guilty or protecting public safety, you just want to make sure they get stuck with the consequences YOU have deemed worthy? And trick? I didn't know there were tricks when crimes were being committed and peoples records permanently scarred by over-charging or mis-charging.

Anyways, OP, you should have taken a picture but if you didn't, remember for future reference. Even better you should record your encounter with the police at all times; check if your state had second party consent laws first. Mine(VA) doesn't so even if a cop tells me to turn the camera off, I don't have to listen. It's better to just not tell them they're being recorded anyways, in my 03 cobra putting my Iphone in the front cup holder with the camera facing the window is inconspicuous and effective.

Other than that, fight it in court with a nice attorney. More money=more chances(I know some of you will disagree but just open your eyes), especially since he has you recorded as being under the speed limit. I would attack him on not being an expert at road conditions because he's not.

Another trick my father has used with great success on his last few tickets is to continue the case for as long as possible, it's more likely the cop will forget, lose his notes, or simply not be able to make court because when he writes you the ticket he assigns a court date he already knows he has to go to.

I hope this helps and I don't mean to attack cops as a whole in my first paragraph, I live with one and he's the most person-like cop I've ever met and I have great respect for him.

 

[bluesnake263]

ugh, jesus man, why do some cops make mountains out of mole hills? I'm a police officer, and I've learned that if someone is commiting a moving violation, such as speeding, do they need to be pulled over? yes. Do they need to be raped in the wallet? NO!!!!! By charging for minor violations like that the only thing we are accomplishing is making the lawyers richer. If the OP had been drinking, or involved in a hit and run, ect. then yeah its time to drop the hammer, but charging all that for 51 in a 55??? come on man.

Anyway! OP here is what i would reccomend, since the officer did not use a speed measuring device such as radar, he is purely going off of his personal opinion. Why did he think that you were going to fast for conditions? what were the conditions? hadnt the conditions been improved by the state department of transportation since the roads had been plowed and salted??? Did your vehicle spin out of control? is there really ANYTHING to justify the officer's opinion as to your speed being too fast for the conditions??? you get my drift. goodluck!

 

[RDJ]

So you're not really all for innocent until proven guilty or protecting public safety, you just want to make sure they get stuck with the consequences YOU have deemed worthy? And trick? I didn't know there were tricks when crimes were being committed and peoples records permanently scarred by over-charging or mis-charging.

there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty. it is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. There IS a difference. Whether or not something reaches the level of "reckless" is subjective. That is why we have courts. if the op can convince a judge that what he did was NOT reckless then that part of the ticket will be thrown out. Same with too fast for conditions. I have seen a judge tell a cop " I drive that road all the time and I don't thing this speed was "too fast for conditions". charges based on subjective reasoning can get tossed.

Anyways, OP, you should have taken a picture but if you didn't, remember for future reference. Even better you should record your encounter with the police at all times; check if your state had second party consent laws first.

picture taking of the scene is always a good thing if you can do it immediately. taking a pic the next day, not so much. as far as recording goes that may or may not be a good idea.

Mine(VA) doesn't so even if a cop tells me to turn the camera off, I don't have to listen. It's better to just not tell them they're being recorded anyways, in my 03 cobra putting my Iphone in the front cup holder with the camera facing the window is inconspicuous and effective.

no true. if the cop deems your recording is interferring with his investigation he can certainly tell you to shut it off and it would be a mistake to not do so. as long as you are not interfering with his investigation you are correct. the phone in the front cup holder is a pretty good way to do it. assuming you are not in a 2 party state.

Other than that, fight it in court with a nice attorney. More money=more chances(I know some of you will disagree but just open your eyes), especially since he has you recorded as being under the speed limit. I would attack him on not being an expert at road conditions because he's not..

I am assuming that you are not suggesting to "attack" him in a disrespectful way. that will get you convicted as an asshat.

there is nothing wrong with asking the cop questions during your time in front of the judge. I have done it plenty and most of it was in Virginia. Don't "attack" him however. ask him for his training on road conditions, or his training on speed estimation. nothing wrong with that and then let the judge decide if he is an expert on it or not. YOU have no idea if the cop is an expert on road conditions seeing as how you don't know the cop, his training, or the true conditions of the road at the time.

Another trick my father has used with great success on his last few tickets is to continue the case for as long as possible, it's more likely the cop will forget, lose his notes, or simply not be able to make court because when he writes you the ticket he assigns a court date he already knows he has to go to...

yeah .. this an a quarter won't even buy you a cup of coffee in today's world. if your father has been in trouble enough times to have data to make this claim he probably shouldn't be driving.

Disclaimer: I am not a cop, nor to I pretend to be one or play one on TV. I do have lots of experience in a number of states however. I also watch judge judy

 

[wesessiah]

ugh, jesus man, why do some cops make mountains out of mole hills? I'm a police officer, and I've learned that if someone is commiting a moving violation, such as speeding, do they need to be pulled over? yes. Do they need to be raped in the wallet? NO!!!!! By charging for minor violations like that the only thing we are accomplishing is making the lawyers richer. If the OP had been drinking, or involved in a hit and run, ect. then yeah its time to drop the hammer, but charging all that for 51 in a 55??? come on man.

Anyway! OP here is what i would reccomend, since the officer did not use a speed measuring device such as radar, he is purely going off of his personal opinion. Why did he think that you were going to fast for conditions? what were the conditions? hadnt the conditions been improved by the state department of transportation since the roads had been plowed and salted??? Did your vehicle spin out of control? is there really ANYTHING to justify the officer's opinion as to your speed being too fast for the conditions??? you get my drift. goodluck!

just 10-14, you'll want to pm FordSVTFan for being approved to post as a law enforcement officer... protocol and all.

 

[JBird_Cobra]

Not quite a similar situation but I went to court awhile back for my exhaust being too loud/modified.

In court I asked the officer how he knew it was modified, how he knew it was too loud, etc. He did not measure it with a decibel meter and never looked under the car. Being that it was up to his discretion and there was no evidence besides 'it sounded too loud' the ticket was dismissed.

You can go ahead and point out that it was entirely discretionary and show that you do not feel you were driving too fast/recklessly and I'm sure you'll be fine.

 

[Iceman II]

Hum, I specifically use this violation as "Unsafe Speed" after a crash situation. It has the same meaning.

 

[S8ER01Z]

Hum, I specifically use this violation as "Unsafe Speed" after a crash situation. It has the same meaning.

Yeah I see a lot of these handed out here after accidents (mainly during the winter months). One of the deputies told me its pretty much guaranteed in those cases.

 

[darcysheppard]

(Colorado) A few days ago I was pulled over on the highway(US-36) in a 55mph zone while doing 51. It had snowed earlier that day and the roads had been plowed and sanded. The particular stretch where the violation took place was, in my opinion, clear with snow drift on the shoulders. When I was pulled over, the officer explained that he felt the speed limit for the conditions was 30mph and that 51 was excessive. While this is a matter of discretion, I cannot argue with an officer's decision. What I dont understand is why he decided to charge me with reckless driving as well as the original offense. The exchange was cordial, I was polite, there was no mention of a roadside or suspicion of alcohol and he did not tell me i was swerving or driving erratically/recklessly. I don't understand why such a major traffic offense was tossed in with the only real offense.

I did speak with a lawyer briefly and he felt like the charge was highly unusual. I'm not trying to bash LEO's or say I did nothing wrong, just trying to gather some info/opinions from LEO's and citizens. Thanks.

ALWAYS GO TO COURT....................... is my opion.