• 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.

Oregon Trial by Declaration? "unsafe distance from emergency vehicles"

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

jeff95350

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Oregon.

I just moved to Portland, OR. I was merging onto 5 N, and I saw 3 cars: a black car, a police motorcycle, and another car pulled over on the shoulder near the merge. I was going well below the speed limit (speed limit is 50mph, I was going about 40 at most the whole time I was behind the 3 cars). I downshifted, finished merging, passed the 3 cars and accelerated to about 45mph. Then, the black car pulls behind me, and it turns out to be an unmarked police car and pulls me over.

He said that it is the law that I need to either change lanes or slow down when approaching emergency vehicles. He said that I sped up, and gave me a citation for failing to maintain a safe distance from emergency vehicles. He will probably argue that the 3 cars were after the merge, and so when I changed lanes I still wasn't a lane away (the 3 cars were in the merging area, and I was a good distance away). He probably thought I sped up because when I downshifted, my engine revved, and my car "looks" fast.

When I asked if I could get a warning, the officer said that he could not because another officer was injured during a traffic stop by oncoming traffic, so he was being extra strict. That does not sound like a valid reason to me. Also the unmarked car was partially obstructing the other two cars, which confused the issue a little.

I have to work, and going to trial is unrealistic for a $242 fine. Is trial by declaration a good option or will that get me nowhere? Will they even allow it, or does it need to be special circumstances?
 


The Occultist

Senior Member
jeff95350 said:
When I asked if I could get a warning, the officer said that he could not because another officer was injured during a traffic stop by oncoming traffic, so he was being extra strict. That does not sound like a valid reason to me.
Excuse me? I don't recall seeing any laws governing when an officer MUST issue a warning, and whether or not he does so is his decision and it is NOT your place to second-guess it. If it happens, you're lucky; if it doesn't, you got what you deserved.

Whatever option you go with, just remember it's gonna be your word vs. the officer's. Good luck.
 

lwpat

Senior Member
This is called the "move over" law and it can be as much as 500 in other states. I haven't researched Oregon but most states require the officer to have his lights on. Your best argument is that since it was an unmarked vehicle, you did not realize it was an emergency vehicle.
 

jeff95350

Junior Member
The Occultist said:
Excuse me? I don't recall seeing any laws governing when an officer MUST issue a warning, and whether or not he does so is his decision and it is NOT your place to second-guess it.
I wasn't implying that he had to give me a warning. I was saying that I shouldn't be held accountable for an unrelated incident. If the reason he is giving me a ticket is because someone else injured a policeman, that seems like possible grounds for challenge, or at least shows the bias of the officer.
 

lwpat

Senior Member
reason he is giving me a ticket is because someone else injured a policeman,
Why do you think most states have enacted this law and made it such a high fine? I assume you think that standing on the side of the road and getting run over is part of the job description?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
jeff95350 said:
I wasn't implying that he had to give me a warning. I was saying that I shouldn't be held accountable for an unrelated incident. If the reason he is giving me a ticket is because someone else injured a policeman, that seems like possible grounds for challenge, or at least shows the bias of the officer.
We tend to be a little biased over things that effect our safety. Besides, most biases are perfectly lawful - as this one is.

The reason you got a ticket was because it was a violation of the law. The reason he didn't give you a warning (aside from the fact he didn't have to) was apparently because it was a hot button issue for him.

- Carl
 

cepe10

Member
you might as well go in, you may get probation before judgement. and the state has to provide the evidence, witnesses etc to convict you. the insurance is what's going to kill you... the law enforcement agencies around the us work very closely with the insurance agencies (wink wink)
 

moburkes

Senior Member
cepe10 said:
you might as well go in, you may get probation before judgement. and the state has to provide the evidence, witnesses etc to convict you. the insurance is what's going to kill you... the law enforcement agencies around the us work very closely with the insurance agencies (wink wink)
Why? Its one freakin' ticket!:confused:
 

moburkes

Senior Member
cepe10 said:
my rates went up 40% for one bogus ticket!
Well, the insurance company doesn't determine if the ticket is bogus or not. Also, your rates didn't go up that high for one ticket, unless you had a BUNCH of other ones, and even then, a 40% surcharge is unheard of. Your rates probably also increased because of a simple rate change by the insurance company and/or other factors besides one ticket.
 

cepe10

Member
just telling you the truth. no accidents in 20+ years of driving no previous tickets. rate increased by travelers insurance by 40% for traveling at the 85% speed on the interstate with the flow of traffic. have the rate increase from as required by the mic to prove it. understand that you are not a PHd civil engineer with transportation engineering knowledge, but I am, and with that I say that traveling with the flow of traffic at the highway design speed, and at or below the 85% speed and given a ticket for it is a bogus citation. Quota system influenced more by the politics of the insurance companies and related law enforcement agencies that having anything to do with safe and effiecient transportation.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
I'm not arguing a bogus ticket with you. I'm saying that your premium increased for other factors that included the ticket, but the ticket was not the only reason for the increase.
 

cepe10

Member
again, the ticket was the only factor for the 40% premium increase.

how much money/equipment does your company give to related law enforcement agencies. do you even know? probably not.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
cepe10 said:
again, the ticket was the only factor for the 40% premium increase.

how much money/equipment does your company give to related law enforcement agencies. do you even know? probably not.
What company is that?

By the way, there are factors outside of your control that increase rates, including RATE INCREASES. Are you telling me that your insurance company didn't file a rate increase?
 

cepe10

Member
come on - your obviously related to an insurance company. my company did file the rate increase form to which i complained about to the commission and the insurance companies response was that the 40% increase was the result of the one speeding ticket.

i believe travelers and other company's have a history of gouging judging by the amount of consent order's against them.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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