• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

License retriction - need advice

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

angiharr

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Indiana

The other night I was driving after midnight and got scared because I was being followed very closely. I didn't realize it was a police officer, and being a single female driving alone on a very dark road after midnight I was nervous, I was slowing down and going off to the side (in hopes the person would pass me).
He follwed me all the way into my apartments and then turned on his lights and pulled me over.

I had just lost my glasses, so I was not wearing my glasses, but I told him that I do not have a restriction on my license for glasses, and that I don't really even need them. I have 20/20 vision in both eyes, and the eye doctor said that I just shoudl wear them if my eyes get strained (since I work in front of a computer all day and often I do have strained eyes, so it just makes me more comfortable to have them on, but I don't require them). He said that my eyes have improved over time.

The police officer looked at my license though, and found that I DO have a glasses restriction.
I really thought that last time I got my license renewed I passed the eye test WITHOUT my glasses on. However the restriction is still on there, and I didn't know it.
Last time i went to the eye doctor, he said that my glasses prescription was TOO STRONG and that I really don't even need glasses, but he reduced my prescrption to very very very mild glasses to just wear when my eyes are strained. I only wear them when I drive or when I'm looking at a transparancy projector with small print in a class or something. I do feel more comfortable with them when I drive, and I always do wear them while driving, but I had JUST lost them a few days before and had ordered new ones. I didn't think I HAD to wear them when I drive though, because I didn't realize I had the restriction; I really see fine.

Anyway, so the police office said that it was a Class C Misdemeanor for me to be driving without my glasses, and now I have to go to court this Thursday. He said I could go to jail and will probably get my license revoked.

The following day after this happened, I got my new glasses, and I also got a note from the eye doctor saying that i have 20/20 vision in both eyes and do not need glasses to drive.

I am not sure what I should do. Woul my note from the eye doctor help me at all? I realize it doesn't change the fact that I was driving without my glasses when the license at the time said
that I needed them,but I figured that it woudl at least give credibililty to my story (i.e. the truth) that I didn't think I had the restriction on my license.

Any advice?

Angie
 


angiharr

Junior Member
Also, would it help me if I went to the license branch today to get my license renewed, and get the restriction removed by passing the eye exam? I am positive that I can pass it, in fact, I'm positive that I passed it last time. Do you think that woudl help me if I did that? Would that be more credible than the note from my doctor? Or will either of those help anyway?

I had asked the police officer if I could pay it like a ticket, and he said no, I have to go to court and I coudl go to jail. SO i guess I just have to go to court right? Is there anything I can do or say in court to help me? Do you think i will really go to jail or get my license revode?
He didn't put anything on the ticket about my driving or anything; just "driving without a restriction".
I am guilty of that. But I truthfully didn't know I had the restriction (it was an old restriction that stayed on there from a few years ago), and I truthfully do not need glasses.

Thanks for any help anyone can give.
I'm nervous about this.
I have never been to court.

Angie
 

lwpat

Senior Member
Go to the DMV and get a new license without the restriction. Also have the statement from the Doctor notarized. Some traffic court Judges will accept notarized statements. Show up in court and hopefully the Judge will drop the charges. If not then plead not guilty and request a trial date.
 

JETX

Senior Member
I was agreeing with your post up until you said " If not then plead not guilty and request a trial date."
Why would you advise this person to plead not guilty when she clearly admits to driving in violation of her license restrictions???

Also, why do you think that this writer will get a 'double dip' at a hearing. If she wants to present her 'evidence' (note from the doctor, etc.) the time to do that is at the hearing. The court will then either accept the submission and dismiss (unlikely in my opinion as the 'after the fact' doesn't remove the violation) or render a verdict. The writer simply doesn't get 'overs'.
 

lwpat

Senior Member
To JETX

I am not an attorney or as experienced in the law as you are. I also am not completely familar with Indiana courts. Based on conversations with others who have been to traffic court in that state my understanding is that your first appearance is an arraignment where you can discuss your case with the ADA or the Judge and enter a plea. I admit this may or may not be the case in this particular traffic court.

Based on the post it would appear that the DMV made a mistake, unlikely as that may seem, and kept the restriction on her license.
Since she does not have the restricted condition then the case should be dismissed.

If they do not dismiss entering a not guilty plea and requesting a trial will allow her time to seek legal assistance or have her case reviewed again by an ADA and possibly dismissed prior to trial.

I also have a problem with the actions of the officer. This is not a Class C misdemeanor but a Class C infraction and she is only subject to a fine, not jail time or license suspension. I also question the manner in which he was following her which does not appear to have been proper procedure.
 

JETX

Senior Member
"Based on the post it would appear that the DMV made a mistake, unlikely as that may seem, and kept the restriction on her license."
*** I don't see where you got that. Simply, there is nothing to show that the DMV was in error or (more likely) that the writer failed in getting her license updated. And if the latter as I suspect, the fact would remain that the driver was in violation of the noted restriction.

"Since she does not have the restricted condition then the case should be dismissed."
*** And I disagree as noted above.

"If they do not dismiss entering a not guilty plea and requesting a trial will allow her time to seek legal assistance or have her case reviewed again by an ADA and possibly dismissed prior to trial."
*** Possible.... but not a fact as you seemed to imply.

"I also have a problem with the actions of the officer. This is not a Class C misdemeanor but a Class C infraction and she is only subject to a fine, not jail time or license suspension."
*** I agree that the officers statements may have been excessive, but remember we are getting only one side of this story.... and the officers mis-statement or error, has no relevance to the court action.

"I also question the manner in which he was following her which does not appear to have been proper procedure."
*** Also, not relevant and subject to interpretation.
 

angiharr

Junior Member
Thank you for your comments and advice.

I was not sure if going to the license branch and retaking the eyetest woudl have any bearing since it is after the fact, but based on your advice it seems it may help; in any case it can't hurt. I am not presenting that as evidence that I didn't have the restrictrion in the first place, but moreso just to show that my statements are true that I am not impaired to drive without my glasses, and to give credibility to the fact that I honestly did not believe that I had this restriction. I am not saying I didn't do anything wrong, I know I did, but I just didn't know I was because I didn't realize i had that restriction.
I am sure that the officer thought I was lying when I told him that I didn't have the restriction, so proving that I don't need glasses will definitely help.
So yeah i will do that.

I am confused about the fact that you said I should say i'm not guilty. If I do that wouldn't it make me look bad, like i'm just trying to say the officer was lying or something? Is there a way to say that I'm guilty of what I was accused of , but I didn't know that I was doing anythign wrong at the time?

I am not tryign to argue against the license branch that they shoulndt have left the restriction on the license. That was 4 years ago, and all I can say about that is that I'm pretty sure that I past the test without my glasses. When I got pulled over and told him that I didn't have that restriction I was NOT LYING, but obviously I was mistaken. I have been trying to figure out how on earth I had it as a restriction. I am not blaming the license branch and I could be wrong, but all I can say is that when i lost my glasses last week and drove without them, I truly believed that I didn't have the restriction, it didn't cross my mind because i knew that i can see fine and that the doctor said that I don't need them.

So i'll jsut go get the restriction taken off and hopefully that will help.

Angie
 

angiharr

Junior Member
Thanks!

Actually, I really do not know. It got dismissed yesterday, and I didn't even have to go to court today. I guess the prosecution dropped it?

Yesterday I went to the license branch and renewed my license; I no longer have that restriction on there. So if I ever lose my glasses, I will no longer be committing a Class C Misdemeanor to drive.

Angie
 

jjtricket

Junior Member
JETX, Sometimes I just do not understand your attitude. lwpat offered constructive advice. You offered absolutely nothing. If the lady did not need glasses why clog the courts with this garbage? Also, the officer certainly should have used a little discretion with this one. The officers that I know would have never given her a citation. What a waste of time.

BTW, I am very happy that your case was dismissed
 

JETX

Senior Member
Is there a full moon out??? Why all these whiney first-time posters???

"JETX, Sometimes I just do not understand your attitude."
*** Who cares??? Your 'understanding' my attitude is not a requisite of my life.

"lwpat offered constructive advice."
*** I agree that his advice was 'constructive'.....yet disagree in the 'assumption' that an 'after the fact' remedy (new license application) would have any relevance on an existing violation. Simply, a valid violation is not undone by the subjects attempt to 'change' the conditions of the violation.

"You offered absolutely nothing."
*** Au contraire, mon ami.
My post was very relevant. I suggest you review your understanding of the English language.

"If the lady did not need glasses why clog the courts with this garbage?"
*** Ahhhh, I see your problem. You have no education or experience in law. You simply think that a bank robber can return the money and undo the crime. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

"Also, the officer certainly should have used a little discretion with this one."
*** As presented by the writer, I agree that the officer may have been a little too literal in applying the statute. However, I also realize that we are only privey to one side of the story...... something you clearly don't understand.

"The officers that I know would have never given her a citation. What a waste of time."
**** But, that is NOT the issue, is it?? The FACT is that an officer apparently DID issue a ticket and based solely on the contents of the original post, it was a technically and legally valid citation.
 

lwpat

Senior Member
Congradulations. Now you should call the department and ask to speak to the officer's shift supervisor and lodge a complaint.

First it is against proper procedure to follow a subject's car so closely as to present a danger. It is just as illegal for an officer to tailgate as it is anyone else.

It is also questionable to follow you into your apartments. The stop should have been made immediately when you turned off the public roadway. This is a safety issue for the officer. Why allow someone to reach their house where there could be others that might try to interfere?

An officer that does not know the difference between a Class C misdemeanor and a Class C infraction has not been properly trained. The only way this guy needs to be out is with an experienced officer.

The dismissal without you having to show for court may be an indication that they are already aware of problems with this officer.
 

JETX

Senior Member
Wow, absolutely fascinating conjecture and supposition..... without any factual basis.
Must buy lotto ticket.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top