• 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.

Gat a reckless driving ticket last night CVC23103

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

bdobs

Junior Member
I live in California in the SF Bay.
I was driving home last night and did a pretty stupid thing.
It was a bit foggy out, I was on a fairly large road at about midnight.
I decided to stop in the road, and test out my new tires and do a burnout. I didnt notice, but there was a police car parked on a perpendicular road directly to my right.
I stopped, hit the gass, and saw the lights. I litterally did this right next to him. As it was a bit foogy, I didnt see him on the dark street.
I felt as it was midnight, no one around, and not in a nieghborhood it would be ok.
I had been drinking a bit that evening, and I passed the sobriety test, and blew a .032 bac.

All my ticket says is "cvc23103 reckless"
speed Approx=35, PF/MAX SPD=35, SAFE=35

He said I reaked od alcohol, I had been playing cards at a friends and had 4-5 beers between 8:30-about midnight.
I am 6'1" and about 230lbs, and I felt fine when I left, as I wouldnt drive if I felt I was impaired, and being that I blew a .032, that pretty much backs that.

What are my chances of getting the charge lessened, and what should I do.
My court date is 1/15/07

I have not gotten a traffic ticket in over 8 years
 


cepe10

Member
The burden of prove on the state will most likeley to be to show a risk of safety of life, limb, or property. I think on questioning I would get them to explain that... precisely...

I can't even see how they will show the pavement suffered damages as the tires are much more elastic and fluid...

You could use that argument as ammunition for a plea down...
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
bdobs said:
I am 6'1" and about 230lbs, and I felt fine when I left, as I wouldnt drive if I felt I was impaired, and being that I blew a .032, that pretty much backs that.

What are my chances of getting the charge lessened, and what should I do.
My court date is 1/15/07
Contrary to popular belief, you ARE impaired at .032 ... just not generally sufficient to justify a criminal charge. Notable impairment begins at about .02.

You were guilty of exhibition of speed:

23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in
willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is
guilty of reckless driving.
(b) Any person who drives any vehicle in any offstreet parking
facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty
of reckless driving.
(c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days
nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred
forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided
in Section 23104.


However, these are often charges as infractions so you will likely face a fine only. Most counties do not want to put you in jail or go to a jury trial for you "lighting 'em up" (spinning the wheels of your tires), so they send you to traffic court instead of superior court trial.

Chances of a reduction are slim as there really is nothing to reduce it to unless they allow you to plead to a charge not an element of your offense such as unsafe speed. The good news is that you might be eligible for traffic school.

- Carl
 

bdobs

Junior Member
Thanks guys!!!

So how do you guys think i should approach this on my court date.
I've never been, so I dont know how this works.
I think the judge will read my charges and ask what I plead?????
When do I get to ask for leaniency? Do I have to actually go to trial, or will I beable to plead my case to him on the initial court date.
I know I am guilty of spinning my tires, but I just dont think it justifies the stiff penalties(2 points, and such).
Do I plead no contest and ask for leaniency do to the nature of the crime, my clean driving record and such???
Thanks again all
This is all very new to me...thank goodness
Brian
 

cepe10

Member
"willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" is the key...

Is a controlled burn out a risk to society????

Even though you burned out it does not appear that there was a significant risk to person(s) or property - I am assuming that the area was clear and had you seen someone approaching by their headlights you would have moved on...

I think I would see if the peace officer shows up in court to persue the issue, if he does then make an explaination you were simply checking the traction of your tires, you never left the travel way, you were not impeding any traffic, there were no nearby residences to disturb, and there was no property or persons at risk...Now you know that some peace officers in the Republic of California considers it a criminal act you have no intentions of doing it again and should have been issued a warning in the first place since it is certainly a grey area...
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The code section doesn't mention WHO is placed in danger or has their property placed in danger.
So, if your tire blew out (which is a real possibility), or if your car veered due to the burnout and hit the curb, causing damage to your car...or the engine blew a rod due to overstressing and somehow caused injury to the driver....
See, someone DID have their person or property placed in danger and it was willful. I'm not sure how you can think otherwise.

And, for Cepe (even though he won't see it). There is absolutely no requirement that a warning be issued and this is not a "grey" area.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
This was not a "controlled" event. And any time your vehicle loses traction, control is lost or greatly impaired.

Another appropriate section could be CVC 23109(b):

(c) A person shall not engage in any motor vehicle exhibition of
speed on a highway, and no person shall aid or abet in a motor
vehicle exhibition of speed on any highway.


Both sections (23103 and 23109) can result in arrest and the impounding of the vehicle. He's fortunate that his vehicle was not towed.

- Carl
 

cepe10

Member
This was not a "controlled" event. And any time your vehicle loses traction, control is lost or greatly impaired.

Another appropriate section could be CVC 23109(b):

(c) A person shall not engage in any motor vehicle exhibition of
speed on a highway, and no person shall aid or abet in a motor
vehicle exhibition of speed on any highway.


Both sections (23103 and 23109) can result in arrest and the impounding of the vehicle. He's fortunate that his vehicle was not towed.

- Carl
The car was most likely not even moving so it would not be much of an exhibition of speed. Now if you had pulled a statute that said specifically "spinning the rear tires of a vehicle is unlawful" then you would certainly have something. As it is the legislature has passed no such law or amended the current laws to that definition, I can see where you would try to use some generic catch-alls. However, on the reckless driving one I could use your same logic to say simply turning the key and starting the engine causes a serial combustion process that is potentially risky to person(s) and property and thus is in the same grey area. I believe the legislature should make it clear or the intent of the law should be followed - that a clear person or property is at risk not an "unlikely" risk of the same...
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
cepe10 said:
The car was most likely not even moving so it would not be much of an exhibition of speed.
Don't know what to tell you except that the courts out here recognize the intentional spinning of tires as an exhibition of speed. You may not agree with it, but there it is.

No person shall engage in any motor vehicle exhibition of speed, or aid and abet in any such exhibition, upon any highway. This offense includes excessive acceleration so as to cause the tires to scream loudly and lose traction. (Grier (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 360; 38 Ops. Atty. Gen. 102.)

This has been enforced thus since I began my career in law enforcement ... in fact, it has been enforced since before I was driving!

We don't make the laws, we merely enforce them. If you were in CA you could certainly be welcome to contact the legislature and legalize the wanton spinning of tires on the public streets.

If we really wanted to be creative, we could also charge the person for vandalizing the public street! Do you know how tough it is to get those marks off the road! :cool:

- Carl
 

cepe10

Member
Don't know what to tell you except that the courts out here recognize the intentional spinning of tires as an exhibition of speed. You may not agree with it, but there it is.

No person shall engage in any motor vehicle exhibition of speed, or aid and abet in any such exhibition, upon any highway. This offense includes excessive acceleration so as to cause the tires to scream loudly and lose traction. (Grier (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 360; 38 Ops. Atty. Gen. 102.)

This has been enforced thus since I began my career in law enforcement ... in fact, it has been enforced since before I was driving!

We don't make the laws, we merely enforce them. If you were in CA you could certainly be welcome to contact the legislature and legalize the wanton spinning of tires on the public streets.

If we really wanted to be creative, we could also charge the person for vandalizing the public street! Do you know how tough it is to get those marks off the road! :cool:

- Carl
Nice work Carl, but now you have the "exhibition" part:)...it was not in a residential area...there were no known bystanders at midnight...and it was not the correct citation given...

"Exhibition" is defined as: "An act or instance of showing, evincing, or showing off; . . ." (Webster's New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1961) p. 796.) Coupled as the word is in this statute with a prohibition against speed "contests," it may be argued that the statute requires not only an observer, but an observer known to defendant to be present and observing and an intent on the part of the defendant to impress that observer with the speed obtained -- whether the impression be one of admiration, envy, disgust, fear or resentment.

Had this display of acceleration and peeling and screaming of tires taken place on a lonely strip of road in the Mojave desert with no one visible or within earshot, the point might have some merit.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Cepe, argue what you will. In CA lighting 'em up on the street is a criminal offense - generally charged under CVC 23109 (though most often as an infraction as opposed to a misdemeanor). You may not like it, you may argue against it, but it does not change the fact that this is the status of the law in CA.

Contact the CA state legislature and the CA courts if you have a complaint.

- Carl
 

Some Random Guy

Senior Member
I wouldn't argue too hard that nobody was put at risk here. You admit that you stopped your car on the roadway, in a lane of traffic where normal traffic could hit you. The night was foggy and you had no real idea if any cars were nearby, as evidenced by the fact that you were right next to a marked patrol car and didn't see them.

You were driving in a manner that puts the public at risk. I don't see where the statute says you have to name a specific individual.

willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property
You were driving with disregard for all persons and property because your driving was inherently unsafe.
 

bdobs

Junior Member
Do you guys think I should get a lawyer, or just ask the judge for leniency and hope he drops it to an infraction for which I can attend traffic school, and not totally screw up my insurance rates.
My story to the judge is
"Hey, I screwed up. I'm 30 years old, and it was simply a stupid decision. I am not in any way denying I spun my tires.
It was late, and no one was around, and I honestly thought this was a safe place to stop, and check the wet traction of my new tires. I wasnt showboating, and in fact I dissapoint many a young kids when I'm at stop lights, and they are literally yelling at me to "smoke em" Maybe when I was a kid, but not these days
This is simply, the honest occurences of what happened.
Again, I am not denying that I stopped on a public road, and stupidly decided it was a good place to do this...Which I know it wasnt.
I am fully aware that I should be punished with a fine and ticket, but...I ask you to take into account, my previous clean record, and the fact that I thought it was a safe time and place to do this, and have some leaniency on me, as a charge of wreckless driving has quite harsh consequences with future monitary loss due to raised insurance premiums and such.

What ya pros think????
 

bdobs

Junior Member
I wouldn't argue too hard that nobody was put at risk here. You admit that you stopped your car on the roadway, in a lane of traffic where normal traffic could hit you. The night was foggy and you had no real idea if any cars were nearby, as evidenced by the fact that you were right next to a marked patrol car and didn't see them.

You were driving in a manner that puts the public at risk. I don't see where the statute says you have to name a specific individual.



You were driving with disregard for all persons and property because your driving was inherently unsafe.


Yes, technically this is all true.
But, do you think, in your honest opinion, that a judge will take into account my previous record, and the actual occurence, and have leaniency on my and drop it to some sort of infraction, where as I pay a fine and get to go to traffic school?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
This will likely be filed as an infraction anyway. If the citation was indicated with an "I" ir "Infraction", then you face only traffic court and a fine only. If it was marked with an "M" or, "Misdemeanor", then you might face a jury or court trial (your option) as jail time might attach.

Consult local counsel.

- Carl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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