Hey! My ticket's got wrong info too!

[Iwasntthere]

What is the name of your state? Confusion, but let's just call it Oregon for now.

Like numerous other posters, I've received a ticket containing incorrect/inconsistent information, and I hope to have the ticket dismissed for that reason.
In my case, the erroneous information is the statute I am alleged to have violated. Racer72 has mentioned this type of mistake in responses to other posts, but does not elaborate.
I was pulled over for no flag/unmarked long load. The officer cited ORS 818.090, and described the violation as "excessive rear clearance (no flag on load)". I plead not guilty and appeared in court only to find that the officer had changed the statute # to 815.275 before filing the ticket with the court. I moved to dismiss, and the judge instead postponed the trial to a later date so I could prepare a new defense.
Question: Do I still have any grounds for dismissal? I wasn't provided with a copy of the "amended" citation until my trial. Also, I don't beleive I waived my right to a speedy trial (the ticket is dated 7/02/02, my trial date was today, 8/20/02, and I must now await a new trial date in the mail - I would anticipate around the end of September).
BTW, my load was marked, with hi-vis flourecent orange paint, and I intended to fight the ticket on the grounds that I had met the intent, if not the letter, of the law.
Also; ORS 815.275 addresses the issue of properly marking a load. The statute on MY copy of the ticket, ORS 818.090, deals with violations of maximum size limits (of which I was not in violation nor alleged to be), and makes no mention whatsoever of marking or flagging a load.
Thanks so much for your anticipated input.

 

[racer72]

Question: Do I still have any grounds for dismissal?

Not anymore. You have been given the correct statute and time to prepare a defense. The officer filed an amendment with the court and it was accepted prior to your court date.


Also, I don't beleive I waived my right to a speedy trial.

Each action is in a 90 day window, well within the context of a speedy trial.

The statute listed on your ticket has no bearing in the case anymore. The ticket has been amended, you have been notified of the amendment and you have been given the time to prepare an adequate defense. If the ticket had not been amended prior to your court appearance, it most likely would have been dismissed. To use sports terminology, the ball is back in your court. And from the wording of the statute, you now do not have a case.

815.275 Failure to mark end of load with light or flag when required; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to mark the end of a load with a light or flag when required if the person drives or moves on any highway or owns and causes or knowingly permits to be driven or moved on any highway any vehicle with a load that extends to the rear four feet or more beyond the bed or body of the vehicle and the person fails to:

(a) Place end load lights described under ORS 816.290 at the extreme rear end of the load, in addition to any other rear light required upon every vehicle, at times when limited visibility conditions exist; or

(b) At any other time, display at the extreme rear end of the load a red flag or cloth not less than 12 inches square.

(2) The offense described in this section, failure to mark end of load with light or flag when required, is a Class C traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §501]

Good luck.

 

[Iwasntthere]

Thanks, Racer, for a thoughtful and consice answer. Obviously not what I hoped to hear, but thanks just the same.

I must whine just a bit , in that it doesn't seem fair to "amend" a ticket after giving the defendant his copy - an analogy would be someone changing a billing invoice after I've signed and received my copy. If the officer wasn't bright enough to cite the correct statute, perhaps he's not bright enough to be writing tickets. "Uhhh, I'm sure it's illegal. I just don't know why. Here's your ticket"
Anyway, in regards to the speedy trial issue, do I understood you correctly, the court has until (roughly) Sept.30 to bring this to trial, unless I request a postponement? (90 day window/action)

Finally, any thoughts as to my original defense re: marking my load with hi-vis flourecent orange paint? My arguments are:
1. The color is highly visible and is the standard color used to warn of traffic dangers worldwide.
2. The area marked with the hi-vis paint is much larger than the required 12"x12" (approx. 12"x48")
3. The paint is superior to flags in that it can't fall or be blown off and superior to lights in that it won't fall off, burn-out, or otherwise fail.

I do have photographs of a similar load, so marked, to use as evidence if this defense seems plausible.
Again, thanks for any input.