• 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.

passing authorized emergency vehicle

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.

SanAntonioHuh

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas -

In San Antonio, I was on loop 410 where it was four lanes wide. I was not speeding, I was in the third of four lanes, and my wife and I were talking. When I used my turn signal and got into the far right lane for my exit, lights came on behind me from a police car who was going full legal speed, 60mph. He ticketed me for passing him without slowing down 20 miles per hour below the speed limit. Here's the thing. I wasn't in the far lane. His lights weren't on. The first I noticed any lights was the moment when he was less than ten feet behind me signaling to pull over.

I am all for protecting emergency vehicles and the brave men and women who serve in them - and i would gladly have slowed down or changed lanes if a) his lights were on to begin with, and b) if I were in the far lane where I might have posed a danger to him. Neither of these were the case. I wasn't in the far lane until I exited, and even after I asked him "what emergency vehicle did I pass?" he said "Mine. You can't do that." But he wasn't pulled over and his lights weren't on. This is clearly a me-and-my-wife versus an officer issue. Is it even worth fighting? I know and understand the law and why it's required. I just feel that in this case, it was an excuse to draw revenue from a law-abiding driver, and that angers me. I come from a family of cops. And we don't do this crap. Should I just bend over and take it, or is it worth fighting in the experience of the readers of this blog?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
If you go to court and he either states that he was moving or not displaying his lights, you've got him:

(a) On approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle using visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:​
 
I did not think that Texans bent over for anyone ... I would fight the charge; bring your wife. Like Flyingron siad, if his lights were not on (and do not ask him this question, he'll answer yes ... if he does not SAY his lights were on this will be good enough) or not stationary (once again, do not ask him this question) ... then when he is done testifying ask the court for a summary judgment at this time telling the court that the testimony does not support a conviction.

The judge should rule in your favor.

If the cop says he was stationary & with his lights on, you are going to be found guilty in all probability but you can still say that there was no stationary vehicle with his lights on & your wife can testify too.

You may (not likely but may) get a judge who will say : OK, not guilty.
This would require the judge to believe your & your wife over a cop.

Can you get Chuck Norris as your consul?
 

tholt4

Member
Many onboard police video cameras come on automatically when the police "light up". Request the video if their cars are so equipped.
 
Many onboard police video cameras come on automatically when the police "light up". Request the video if their cars are so equipped.
Ask for all the ones from that day if you wish to take this approach. If the vids are taken automatically upon the lights being activated then the lack of a vid would be proof that the lights were not on.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Ask for all the ones from that day if you wish to take this approach. If the vids are taken automatically upon the lights being activated then the lack of a vid would be proof that the lights were not on.
No :rolleyes:

It would be proof that a video does not exist.
 
No :rolleyes:

It would be proof that a video does not exist.
If the lights automatically activates the video & there is no video then the lights were not activated.

Its simple logic ... the lack that a video exists could be used in an argument that no lights were on ... the state would have to have a reason for the lack of a video. Then its up to the court to decide.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
If the lights automatically activates the video & there is no video then the lights were not activated.

Its simple logic ... the lack that a video exists could be used in an argument that no lights were on ... the state would have to have a reason for the lack of a video. Then its up to the court to decide.
Or it could be evidence that a video does not exist...for a myriad of other reasons. Seriously man...
 
**A: I agree. Especially your last sentence.
If the state cannot refute the reason for a lack of video on an automatic video recording system then it will leave the judge thinking like they are hiding evidence.

What if they produce 10 videos and the officer testifies that the system automatically records and he can offer no reason why the system did not video-tape his stop then the court would see this as proof that the system did not activate because he did not have his lights on.

You folks are over thinking this issue. Way over thinking it.

Keep you snide comments to yourself; didn't your mother teach you not to say anything if all you have to say is a snide comment? I am certain she did.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
If the state cannot refute the reason for a lack of video on an automatic video recording system then it will leave the judge thinking like they are hiding evidence.

What if they produce 10 videos and the officer testifies that the system automatically records and he can offer no reason why the system did not video-tape his stop then the court would see this as proof that the system did not activate because he did not have his lights on.

You folks are over thinking this issue. Way over thinking it.

Keep you snide comments to yourself; didn't your mother teach you not to say anything if all you have to say is a snide comment? I am certain she did.
Oh, I get it. You suggest that the OP goes in and says: "They don't have me on video so I must not have done it." Great advice there... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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