Issued a ticket because I was the owner of the car

[mark0157]

What is the name of your state?

Minnesota

I was issued a citation for violating statue 169.444(2) because I own the car. I received it in the mail and when I called the prosecuter I explained that I was at work when it occurred. He infomred me that as the car owner I could be fined.

1) Why did they not pull the car over? I have no idea who was even driving it at the time? and 2) the prosecuter said I would have to pay to have the file sent to me...is it legal to make me pay for disclosure?

Thanks

 

[spanishpakizn]

169.444: Safety of school children; duties of other drivers.

Subd. 2. Violations by drivers; penalties. (a) A
person who fails to stop a vehicle or to keep it stopped, as
required in subdivision 1, or who violates subdivision 1a, is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than
$300.

(b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if the person
fails to stop a motor vehicle or to keep it stopped, as required
in subdivision 1, or who violates subdivision 1a, and commits
either or both of the following acts:

(1) passes or attempts to pass the school bus in a motor
vehicle on the right-hand, passenger-door side of the bus; or

(2) passes or attempts to pass the school bus in a motor
vehicle when a school child is outside of and on the street or
highway used by the school bus or on the adjacent sidewalk.

(That's from the 2004 Minnesota Statutes.)

 

[mark0157]

How can they issue me a citation when I can prove that I was at work? The city prosecuter even admits the driver was a white male (I am female) and I have no idea who may have been driving my car.

The city prosecuter also informed me that I could be charged as an owner vs. a driver. The city prosecuter also said that at my pre-arraignment they would be offereing me a continuance for dismissal and if no further violations are received within one year it will not go on my record.

Should I accept this or ask to contest the ticket? I can prove I was not driving the car and thererfore cannot be chraged as the driver (I have 6 witnesses and phone records that support me being at work).

 

[Curt581]

You aren't being charged as the driver.

You aren't being charged as the driver.

You are NOT being charged as the driver.

You are being held liable as the OWNER of the vehicle

I don't know to make it any easier to understand.

Nobody is going to believe that you had no idea who was driving YOUR car. It's far more likely that you're protecting whoever was driving.

Tell them who it was, and have that person take his medicine like a man. Otherwise, it's your ticket.

 

[Pugilist]

I would like to ask Curt to explain why he thinks that the OP is criminally liable for what someone else did in his car. That's silly!

It may change soon, if certain people get their way, but so far in this country you are innocent til proven guilty. So, your defense will simply be "it's wasn't me." The judge, if he has been to law school and understands his role, will never ask you if you know who it was driving. A judge knows that the investigatory role belongs to the police, not the court.

You should get a lawyer to help you handle this.

Pug

 

[Curt581]

I would like to ask Curt to explain why he thinks that the OP is criminally liable for what someone else did in his car. That's silly!

How, you ask?

Here's how... read Subd 6(a) and weep.

From Minnesota Traffic Statutes Ch 169.444 (The OP didn't post the entire statute)

Subd. 6. Violation; penalty for owner or lessee.

(a) If a motor vehicle is operated in violation of subdivision 1 or 1a, the owner of the vehicle, or for a leased motor vehicle the lessee of the vehicle, is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

(b) The owner or lessee may not be fined under paragraph(a) if (1) another person is convicted for that violation, or (2) the motor vehicle was stolen at the time of the violation.

(c) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a lessor of a motor vehicle if the lessor keeps a record of the name and address of the lessee.

(d) Paragraph (a) does not prohibit or limit the prosecution of a motor vehicle operator for violating subdivision 1 or 1a.

(e) A violation under paragraph (a) does not constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of the owner's or lessee's driver's license.

What dumb response do you have now, Pug?

 

[Pugilist]

Dumb response:

Silly law. Probably unconstitutional. Fight It.

Pug

 

[Curt581]

Dumb response:

Silly law. Probably unconstitutional. Fight It.

Yep. I was right.

You forgot to tell him to buy the book, Pug !

Isn't that your standard answer, since you don't know what to tell him yourself?

 

[Pugilist]

Curt:

I know your style is 'ad hominem' (Webster's: "attacking one's opponent rather than addressing the issue under discussion"), but I don't plan to reply in kind. I would prefer to discuss what appears to be a very interesting issue: Is such a law constitutional? What is your opinion?

Pug

 

[Pugilist]

So I guess everyone agrees with me, that this law is unconstitutional?

Pug

 

[LSCAP]

Curt I'm glad you found and showed the rest of the section of law. It gives a clue to the problem.

Now I don't mean this negative, but could you find (I can't) the dispositions of cases that occurred after the original law was written? I have a NC book handy LOL , but totally useless for this.

I am not being a wise guy. I am curious. because at this point Pug is right about it sounding against the constitution.

Did the officer have a picture of the plate to prove it was really the one he said it was?

If not, at this point the law is saying 'if a cop says a vehicle with such and such a plate committed this violation the owner is automatically guilty.

If the cop happened to write down your plate number, ( Curt or mine or pug) and we live hundreds of miles away, does this still apply.

Most NC plates are red, white and blue. I saw a green one yesterday and had to drive closer to make sure it was a NC vanity plate. Could he have made a mistake that way?

Suppose the defendant was in jail for the past year, or a coma, or in Iraq? He has no defense?.

Sounds like a case for ACLU.

 

[CdwJava]

I'm guessing it was not a cop who wrote the plate down, but the bus driver. The same thing happens out here, but we do not have a law to hold the owner of the vehicle responsible if the driver cannot be located.

I'm guessing that a Constitutional defense has already been tried and lost.

If we could only get CA to pass such a thing!

- Carl

 

[efflandt]

Where was the car that you have no clue who might have been using it (did you not have it at work)?

Was there any other description of the vehicle (make, model, color)? It is possible that someone did not write down the correct plate number.

 

[LSCAP]

C'mon Carl. You know it's a bad law.

Suppose some bus driver was on vacation in CA and you Pi$$ed him off.
A week later you get the citation?

I suspect no one has had the money or gumption to fight it.

And not enough publicity for the ACLU.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

C'mon Carl. You know it's a bad law.

Suppose some bus driver was on vacation in CA and you Pi$$ed him off.
A week later you get the citation?

I suspect no one has had the money or gumption to fight it.

And not enough publicity for the ACLU.

Well then, go fight it.