Officer writes a citation, then tells me to go to court and plead not guilty...

[kwhite12]

Hello,
I live in Maryland. About a month ago I was driving home from work around 4am, and it had been raining that night. I was taking an exit off the D.C. Beltway 495 onto Interstate 95 North (a major highway with a high speed limit, somewhere between 55 and 65 I believe). I used my brakes going into the exit, released, then pressed on them again to go around the exit. As I broke to go around the exit, my two rear tires began to fishtail. I believe I hydro-planed for about a second and then my tires caught and continued to slide my vehicle into a guard rail. I flipped over the guard rail landing upside down.

I know I wasn’t driving over the limit so thats not the issue, but more importantly I do believe I was driving within reasonable limits given the road I was on AND the conditions of the road… This could easily be debated, but the term “reasonable” is a matter of opinion, is it not? Can my speed therefore be deemed unreasonable by a court if A: no one saw me, including the officer, and B: the officer or myself have no evidence of the actual speed that I was driving? I suspect so, but I'd like to better understand how…

Later, the officer wrote me a citation for "failure to control speed to avoid collision". He then proceeded to tell me that if I go to court and "plead not guilty" that he believes that I have a good chance that the charges will be dropped given that he did not witness the accident.

I am unsure how to approach this, what to say to the judge If I plead not guilty, and if there is any legitimacy to the officers claim that I can plead not guilty and have it somehow benefit me.

Questions I have:

1. If I plead not guilty, will I have to explain my version first and THEN the officer, or do I just plead not guilty and the officer explains the story without me? I don’t want to accidentally say something that would be self incriminating before the officer speaks. I’m not familiar with the procedure for pleading not guilty.

2. Do I mention to the judge that the officer told me that I might have a chance if I plead not guilty, and that I somewhat basing my decision to plead not guilty based on his recommendation? Would that get him in trouble, or make me look stupid?

3. How do I argue that my speed was not the cause? Is Hydroplaning in any way considered irrelevant to speed, given that a vehicle is uncontrollable when sliding on water? If not, do I even have an argument to the charge? If not, why did the officer say he believed I had a chance?

4. I read that the officer may choose to reduce the charges before the judge, possibly offering me a bargain or something. Is this true?

5. I plan to get to the courthouse early in an attempt to speak with the officer early. Is it reasonable for me to ask him how to approach the situation, or would that be considered wrong or illegal for him to do that? I want to be on the same page as the officer in case he plans to help me out in any way.

6. Is the vehicle I was driving of any relevance? It was an older Chevy van (the typical white vans that a lot of businesses use, it was my company vehicle) rear wheel drive and naturally don’t handle well in bad weather. I assume this has no bearing what-so-ever.

Thank you for your help!

[Citicop]

I would say that if you lost control of your vehicle, hit a guard rail, and flipped it over, this is very strong evidence that your speed was too fast for the conditions present on the road, or else you would have been in control of your car.

To answer your specific questions:

1.) You plead not guilty, and there is a trial. The prosecutor interviews the officer, who gives his side. Then you get to ask the officer questions. Then you can tell your side if you want to (you don't have to). If you do decide to testify, then the prosecutor will get to cross examine you and ask you questions, too.

2.) The judge won't care why you are pleading not guilty. It will have no effect on the case at all.

3.) A vehicle at high speed is more likely to hydroplane than a vehicle at low speed. No one here knows why the officer told you this, I disagree with him.

4.) The prosecutor may choose to do so. Once the case is filed, it is out of the officer's hands.

5.) The officer cannot advise you on how to proceed with your case. If you want legal advice, retain counsel.

6.) Of course it has a bearing on the case. You knew you were driving a vehicle that does not handle well in bad weather. This means you should have taken this into account in the manner in which you were driving.

-Citicop.

[mcsap]

Hello,
I live in Maryland. About a month ago I was driving home from work around 4am, and it had been raining that night. I was taking an exit off the D.C. Beltway 495 onto Interstate 95 North (a major highway with a high speed limit, somewhere between 55 and 65 I believe). I used my brakes going into the exit, released, then pressed on them again to go around the exit. As I broke to go around the exit, my two rear tires began to fishtail. I believe I hydro-planed for about a second and then my tires caught and continued to slide my vehicle into a guard rail. I flipped over the guard rail landing upside down.

I know I wasn’t driving over the limit so thats not the issue, but more importantly I do believe I was driving within reasonable limits given the road I was on AND the conditions of the road… This could easily be debated, but the term “reasonable” is a matter of opinion, is it not? Can my speed therefore be deemed unreasonable by a court if A: no one saw me, including the officer, and B: the officer or myself have no evidence of the actual speed that I was driving? I suspect so, but I'd like to better understand how…

Later, the officer wrote me a citation for "failure to control speed to avoid collision". He then proceeded to tell me that if I go to court and "plead not guilty" that he believes that I have a good chance that the charges will be dropped given that he did not witness the accident.

I am unsure how to approach this, what to say to the judge If I plead not guilty, and if there is any legitimacy to the officers claim that I can plead not guilty and have it somehow benefit me.

Questions I have:

1. If I plead not guilty, will I have to explain my version first and THEN the officer, or do I just plead not guilty and the officer explains the story without me? I don’t want to accidentally say something that would be self incriminating before the officer speaks. I’m not familiar with the procedure for pleading not guilty.

2. Do I mention to the judge that the officer told me that I might have a chance if I plead not guilty, and that I somewhat basing my decision to plead not guilty based on his recommendation? Would that get him in trouble, or make me look stupid?

3. How do I argue that my speed was not the cause? Is Hydroplaning in any way considered irrelevant to speed, given that a vehicle is uncontrollable when sliding on water? If not, do I even have an argument to the charge? If not, why did the officer say he believed I had a chance?

4. I read that the officer may choose to reduce the charges before the judge, possibly offering me a bargain or something. Is this true?

5. I plan to get to the courthouse early in an attempt to speak with the officer early. Is it reasonable for me to ask him how to approach the situation, or would that be considered wrong or illegal for him to do that? I want to be on the same page as the officer in case he plans to help me out in any way.

6. Is the vehicle I was driving of any relevance? It was an older Chevy van (the typical white vans that a lot of businesses use, it was my company vehicle) rear wheel drive and naturally don’t handle well in bad weather. I assume this has no bearing what-so-ever.

Thank you for your help!

If you can't control your car and slid off of the road , then you were going too fast for the conditions. It is quite possible to drive too fast for conditions and be UNDER the speed limit.

How many other cars crashed and or flipped over there before or after you ??

Also , we are not going to assist you in preparing a defense for your case.

Hire a lawyer or go to some traffic cases and observe.

I can ( and have many times ) cited people for doing exactly what you have done , there is no legal requirement that I witnees what you did when the evidence plainly shows what happened.

[Gutwrench]

If you were in California it would go something like this:

You will arrive at traffic court and will be sworn in along with the others who are there to contest their case.

Your case will be eventually called and the officer will explain the circumstances surrounding the ticket. You will then be allowed to present your side and ask questions of the officer. This is your opportunity to persuade the judge the circumstances do not support the offense. The judge may even ask you questions.

The judge will then find you guilty and enter an order for the fine as prescribed by law.

You will then leave (disappointment optional) and the next case will be called with a similar result. On average each case takes < 5 minutes.

(Of course I am being a little tongue-in-check but that's the basic process. Keep in mind each judge has their own personality but none will suffer long rambling statements. Some can be downright harsh with people and on occasion even with the po-po.)

[Joeyd6]

Your hopes of winning this are slim to none, and none just got hit by a bus.

Your vehicle type does not matter at all. As a driver, you have the responsibility to "drive reasonable." You stated that point can be "debated" for definition. Not really. One you need to follow the posted traffic controls and signs. Additionally, you need to adjust accordingly for the road conditions, both environmental and other drivers. If it is snowing or raining, the posted 45 mph speed limit is o longer reasonable, and you should be going slower.

You have self admitted:
1) You were driving an older car.
2) You knew that car was rear wheel drive.
3) You knew the car traditionally does not handle well in bad weather.
4) It was raining/wet out.

Driving reasonable means adjusting your speed and actions so that your vehicle stays on the road and gets you to your destination without causing a hazard or inconvenience to others. You failed at that. Either your tires were crap (which still falls on you, the operator, who has a duty to make sure their car is safe and in working order), or you were traveling to fast for the road condition. Period! Cars don't fish-tail or roll over unless you are doing something unreasonable.

You are guilty....arguing that point will get you nothing. You might want to consider another angle....asking for leniency!

[kwhite12]

I appreciate the responses... as well as the abundance of juvenile sarcasm

I will in all likellihood just go and plead guilty, as I believe all of you are correct. In fact, I agreed with the notion that I had no case to begin with, but was confused as to why the officer believed I had a chance by pleading not guilty. I more or less wanted to know if this sort of courtesy was common among police officers. Apparently not.

Again thank you for your responses.

[GoDirectly2Jail]

... as well as the abundance of juvenile sarcasm

That's our speciality!

[greg72982]

That's our speciality!

If we were mature we would have been attorneys...