are citations for "failure to control vehicle speed...collision" standard issue?

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Also, I checked the state's court website and found out the other driver never responded to their citation and their license is going to be suspended. Will that help me in my case as well?

No. Your citation is for your actions, irrespective of the other driver.

[sidepocketwil]

That sounds very reasonable and makes sense to me. However, doesn't the other driver not responding to his citation show him as irresponsible which could deem him as perhaps an irresponsible driver as well? And him being an irresponsible driver does have bearing on who may have caused the accident.

Now, on to something else a bit more confusing. How can the court possibly find me guilty if the other driver's insurance co is paying 100% of damages? Since MD is a contributory negligence state, the other insurance co is only legally required to compensate me if I am 0% at fault. I assume they are following the law and their pocket books so they must believe I was 0% at fault. If the court finds me guilty there would be a conflict as to who is really correct in their assessment of fault. Can I be 0% at fault and still be guilty of committing the infraction I was cited for?

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Insurance is a civil matter of covering damages and is wholly separate from traffic court. Traffic court is not a place to argue whom caused the collision or is more responsible for it. You are there for your charge and yours alone.

[sidepocketwil]

My understanding was that outside of DUIs, hit and runs, and using a vehicle as a deadly weapon, most traffic infractions are a civil matter so the worst that can happen is you get fined and get points on your driving record.

I think court is the place to argue who caused and is responsible for the collision because the entire basis for my citation is that the LEO thinks I failed to control my vehicle to avoid the collision. I don't believe I caused the collision or failed to control my vehicle and nor does the other driver's insurance co otherwise they wouldn't be paying for my damages. If I couldn't argue that in court then what is the point of court?

[Sgt. Slaughter]

You argue whatever you want. Don't get upset or frustrated when the magistrate brings you back on point again and again. You're there for YOUR actions. Following behind another vehicle, you need to leave enough room to safely stop in the event of an emergency. The fact the other driver committed a violation does not negate your responsibility to not hit them.

Good luck. Let us know how it turns out.

[sidepocketwil]

Thanks, I'll update after my court date in a few weeks. Btw, for clarification I was not following the other vehicle when they did the u-turn through my lane. They were in the right lane and I was in the left with no cars in front of me. Their insurance company looked at my car and determined that the other driver hit me while I was avoiding the abrupt u-turn. You're right in that if I was following too closely and directly behind the other driver then I would be partially at fault. Good thing their insurance company was able to look at my damage and determine I was not following behind their driver when the accident occurred otherwise I'd be SOL.

[sidepocketwil]

Finally had my day in court this week. I am pretty happy with the results. The judge called my name and I went up and stood before the defendant's table. I didn't have to enter a plea or speak at all. The judge simply asked the officer if anybody went to the hospital, if there was any evidence or witnesses to prove the state's case and the officer said no. Then the judge dismissed the case and I said "thank you your honor" and left with dismissal papers.

Now the question is, shouldn't the officer have known based on state laws or prior experience that the judge will dismiss my citation, if contested, for lack of evidence and witnesses? If so why even bother to issue the citation. Perhaps in the hope that I just pay the ticket willingly?

[Citicop]

Finally had my day in court this week. I am pretty happy with the results. The judge called my name and I went up and stood before the defendant's table. I didn't have to enter a plea or speak at all. The judge simply asked the officer if anybody went to the hospital, if there was any evidence or witnesses to prove the state's case and the officer said no. Then the judge dismissed the case and I said "thank you your honor" and left with dismissal papers.

Now the question is, shouldn't the officer have known based on state laws or prior experience that the judge will dismiss my citation, if contested, for lack of evidence and witnesses? If so why even bother to issue the citation. Perhaps in the hope that I just pay the ticket willingly?

Seriously?

It makes no difference to me what may or may not happen to a ticket in court. The only question an officer needs to be able to answer prior to writing a ticket is, "Is there Probable Cause to believe that the suspect committed the violation in question?"

If the answer to that question is "yes," then an officer is perfectly fine in writing a citation even if the judge or prosecutor won't do anything with it. We take good cases to our Prosecutors all the time and they get refused for whatever reason... that doesn't mean we stop arresting people on good cases.

Your ticket got dismissed... I see no reason for you to try to further make yourself feel better by making the leap that the officer somehow acted improperly or "should have known better." He did his job. If you really think he somehow broke the law or illegally issued you a ticket, get a lawyer and sue him. But don't expect a board full of cops to agree with you that you should never have received a ticket in the first place and the officer should have known better than to write it.

After all, the only side of this story we have heard is yours.

-Citicop.

[marinepilot]

Finally had my day in court this week. I am pretty happy with the results. The judge called my name and I went up and stood before the defendant's table. I didn't have to enter a plea or speak at all. The judge simply asked the officer if anybody went to the hospital, if there was any evidence or witnesses to prove the state's case and the officer said no. Then the judge dismissed the case and I said "thank you your honor" and left with dismissal papers.

Now the question is, shouldn't the officer have known based on state laws or prior experience that the judge will dismiss my citation, if contested, for lack of evidence and witnesses? If so why even bother to issue the citation. Perhaps in the hope that I just pay the ticket willingly?

Based on state laws, you broke one and received a citation for it. Based on his experience, maybe he knew of other judges that would hammer your a** to a wall for it. Maybe only rotten luck on his part allowed you to have the judge you got.

Like Citicop said above, if we went off what we thought would happen in court, 1) we would barely ever do ANYTHING, and 2) we DEFINITELY would not be doing the job we were hired for.

The officer did nothing but his job. Be grateful you got a lax judge who just threw it out and not the hammer who would have sentenced you to the full extent of the law, and let it go.

[MP_Steve]

Now the question is, shouldn't the officer have known based on state laws or prior experience that the judge will dismiss my citation, if contested, for lack of evidence and witnesses? If so why even bother to issue the citation.

Like one of my collegues said earlier in this thread, the officer' departmental policy may have required her to issue you the citation as the result of your actions leading up to the traffic accident.

I doubt it was her first day on the job. I'm sure she knew it would be dismissed, but she had PC and perhaps her hands were tied. Do you really believe that your type of situation was the first situation she's encountered and had to go to court on? Unlikely.

All I have to do when I issue a citation or make an arrest is that I do it legally and make a good case. What happens next it someone else's job and it's out of my hands.

Besides, she probably got 4 hours of OVERTIME just to appear in court at your (and the taxpayers) expense, so I'd welcome that to. At least she didn't get her percentage of the commission on you paying the ticket.

[sidepocketwil]

I don't deny that you guys bring up valid points as LEOs and it all sounds fair enough from the LEO's perspective. I'm just telling it from my view as a civilian and in my view a victim of a bad driver. As for whether I should have received the citation to start with I think if the LEO had examined the accident scene and the vehicle damages, then she wouldn't have cited me. Unfortunately, the LEO said she wasn't a specialist and wasn't trained to do an accident analysis and so cited me based on her judgement, which was news to me because I thought all LEOs would at least have basic training in that field. True or not I don't know, perhaps just not around here, and that's something for the city to fix. For instance, initially the other party's insurance denied my claim but once they examined the vehicle damages along with witness statements they agreed that I was not at fault and accepted my claim.

Anyhow, it's a moot point to beat a dead horse now. It hasn't been a fun experience but it was certainly very informative and I've learned a lot of useful information that I hopefully will never have to put to use again. Thanks for all the comments and answering my numerous questions.

[mcsap]

FEW officers have accident training beyond the academy. But it isn't rocket science.

The bottom line is the the officer enforced the traffic laws , it doesn't matter if there was even a crash. Was there an indication that you ( or someone ) broke a traffic law ?


If I write you a ticket for blowing a red light with no crash or I write you for doing so and hitting someone , is there really any difference to what law was broken ?

[sidepocketwil]

FEW officers have accident training beyond the academy. But it isn't rocket science.

The bottom line is the the officer enforced the traffic laws , it doesn't matter if there was even a crash. Was there an indication that you ( or someone ) broke a traffic law ?


If I write you a ticket for blowing a red light with no crash or I write you for doing so and hitting someone , is there really any difference to what law was broken ?

mcsap

No I didn't break any traffic laws. I was simply driving straight in my left lane when a vehicle on the right lane decided to do a u-turn through my lane. I swerve left to avoid, other driver continue their turn and hits me in the front right. Result, he gets improper turn ticket and I get failure to control vehicle speed to avoid collision ticket. If the cop checked out the damage like the insurance company she would have seen I didn't hit the other car and not cited me. Even if I hit them I still shouldn't be cited since they basically jump in front of my lane.