Photo Speeding Ticket In Washington, DC

[Max The DOg]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington, DC

I received a "Notice of Infraction" from the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department for speeding. The notice had a picture of my licenses plate and vehicle. There was no attempt to photograph the driver. The ticket had a link to a web site showing the pictures. It did not cite any specific statute.

This vehicle is registered to both myself and my spouse. The notice/ticket is issued in my name only.

First, under Washington, DC law it appears the registered owner is presumed to be responsible for the vehicle. It also requires "clear and convincing" evidence for guilt (at a civil trial).

Has anyone had any luck contesting a ticket under this situation. I really don't want to nominate my spouse as the driver. Could I attempt the "Well which registered owner was driving Mr. Prosecutor? It can't be both of us." argument? and avoid testifying that my spouse was driving.

Secondly, I've never received a "notice of violation" before. Does DC issue "snitch" tickets like other jurisdictions?

Thanks.

 

[startedone]

You can certainly argue the admissibility of the photo/video under foundation and right-to-confront issues (Melendez-Diaz, Crawford etc).

Looks like if you want to say you were not the driver then you can simply prove you were somewhere else at the time? Can you prove this? Work e-mail, etc..

 

[HighwayMan]

This should answer your questions. It took all of 10 seconds to find this:


http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1240,q,547977,mpdcNav_GID,1552,mpdcNav,|31886|.asp

 

[HighwayMan]

Looks like if you want to say you were not the driver then you can simply prove you were somewhere else at the time?

It apparently does NOT work that way.

 

[Max The DOg]

Highwayman,

Not to be rude, but I'm well aware of the process of "nominating" another driver. I was clear about that in the original post.

I was curious if anyone had any experience with DC traffic court. I do not want to "nominate" my spouse and simply fight the same battle again six weeks, when he/she receives the ticket.

Finally, DC wants the driver's license number of the offending motorist. I have serious questions as to how a civilian is supposed to magically get the license number of the offending motorist.

Because it is a civil matter, I do not have the spousal privilege option available to me.

Thanks for the response, I don't have access to any receipts or email that prove I was located somewhere else, but I appreciate the idea.

 

[asiny]

Finally, DC wants the driver's license number of the offending motorist. I have serious questions as to how a civilian is supposed to magically get the license number of the offending motorist.

If you loaned the car to someone else who, during the time they had the car, were photo-caught speeding... then it's not any stretch of 'magic' that you may be able to get their DL number.... especially at it's the spouse.

Thanks for the response, I don't have access to any receipts or email that prove I was located somewhere else, but I appreciate the idea.

Despite it being completely useless...
... it does not matter if you can prove you did not have "care, custody, or control of their vehicle at the time of the infraction"... they want to know if you are not accepting responsibility, who is.

 

[startedone]

If you loaned the car to someone else who, during the time they had the car, were photo-caught speeding... then it's not any stretch of 'magic' that you may be able to get their DL number.... especially at it's the spouse.

Despite it being completely useless...
... it does not matter if you can prove you did not have "care, custody, or control of their vehicle at the time of the infraction"... they want to know if you are not accepting responsibility, who is.

The issue with snitching on someone is that the OP would have no idea who was driving ... he did not witness the car traveling through the light so how can he say, under oath, that any particular person was driving at that time?

From the link kindly provided before:
----------------------------------------------------
What if I wasn't driving my car?

Vehicle owners who receive a ticket in the mail must provide the full name, address and driver's license number of the person who had care, custody, or control of their vehicle at the time of the infraction. Directions are included on the back of each ticket mailed. If you car was stolen at the time of the infraction and you reported the offense to the police, any photo enforcement tickets will be voided.

-----------------------------------------------------

The word "must" is not mandatory. The word "shall" is .. but it is not in this ...
So, the actual statue should be referenced ...

The is no requirement to get the names, addresses etc. of people before they take their car. Now you get a notice 2 weeks after the incident...no one knows where they or their car have been 24/7 2 weeks ago.

 

[Max The DOg]

If you loaned the car to someone else who, during the time they had the car, were photo-caught speeding... then it's not any stretch of 'magic' that you may be able to get their DL number.... especially at it's the spouse.

I'm not willing to act as an agent of the government and brow beat (or even ask nicely) my spouse into providing the his/her license number. Compelling one spouse to testify against another is a tricky issue.

As near as I can tell, Washington, DC is the only place that actually requires you to identify the other driver.

I guess I should add, that myself and my spouse are smart enough to never offer a statement if we are suspected of a crime.

 

[Cali408nia]

The issue with snitching on someone is that the OP would have no idea who was driving ... he did not witness the car traveling through the light so how can he say, under oath, that any particular person was driving at that time?

He may not know who was driving, but he knows who he gave care, custody, and control of the vehicle to when he lent it out. And that is what is asked for.

 

[startedone]

He may not know who was driving, but he knows who he gave care, custody, and control of the vehicle to when he lent it out. And that is what is asked for.

Says "at the time.." and one can leave keys out and anyone can take them ...

who he gave out the car to, even if he knows, is not necessarily who drove the car past the red light. The OP cannot testify to this. He was not there.

 

[Cali408nia]

Says "at the time.." and one can leave keys out and anyone can take them ...

And without permission, that would be theft.

who he gave out the car to, even if he knows, is not necessarily who drove the car past the red light. The OP cannot testify to this. He was not there.

Obviously. That's why he testifies to who he gave care, custody and control to. And then that person testifies as to what they did with the car once it was under their care, custody and control. Even if the OP gave care, custody, and control of his car that is titled and registered in his name to somebody named Joe 2 weeks prior to this ticket, and Joe then lends the car out to somebody else, who lends it out to somebody else who got the ticket, it's NOT Joe's car to lend out to anybody else without first getting the OP's permission. So the short answer is, the OP knows who he did and didn't lend the car to. If the car was stolen or Joe had no right to lend a car out and did, then a report or small claims issue should be filed. That doesn't sound like it's the case here. The OP knows who was responsible for his car.

 

[Max The DOg]

The OP does not want to identify his/her spouse as the driver and have the ticket re-issued to his/her spouse on the basis of this statement.

Then again, I may be giving those bozos in DC municipal government too much credit if they are organized to actually do this.

Let me ask this too anyone familiar with DC: Will DC re-issue the ticket on the basis of identifying the driver? Would the actual driver be allowed to object on hearsay basis to a statement being introduced (i.e. not being allowed to question the person who fingered them as the driver?)

 

[asiny]

The OP does not want to identify his/her spouse as the driver and have the ticket re-issued to his/her spouse on the basis of this statement.

You are the OP.- Also, i'd be more concerned that my spouse seems to have a lead-foot while driving my car and doesn't want to stand-up and accept the consequences of their actions.

Then again, I may be giving those bozos in DC municipal government too much credit if they are organized to actually do this.

If you responded with the information of who had "care, custody, or control of their vehicle at the time of the infraction"- then no credit needed.. they would re-issue the ticket to that person.

Let me ask this too anyone familiar with DC: Will DC re-issue the ticket on the basis of identifying the driver?

Yes.

Would the actual driver be allowed to object on hearsay basis to a statement being introduced (i.e. not being allowed to question the person who fingered them as the driver?)

No. They would be able to get an attorney to fight the ticket if they wanted. If your spouse is an attorney (or educated in law), then they are in luck.

Outside of that, what evidence would your spouse submit that you lied on an official document that they were the person who had "care, custody, or control of their vehicle at the time of the infraction"?

 

[startedone]

And without permission, that would be theft.


Obviously. That's why he testifies to who he gave care, custody and control to. And then that person testifies as to what they did with the car once it was under their care, custody and control. Even if the OP gave care, custody, and control of his car that is titled and registered in his name to somebody named Joe 2 weeks prior to this ticket, and Joe then lends the car out to somebody else, who lends it out to somebody else who got the ticket, it's NOT Joe's car to lend out to anybody else without first getting the OP's permission. So the short answer is, the OP knows who he did and didn't lend the car to. If the car was stolen or Joe had no right to lend a car out and did, then a report or small claims issue should be filed. That doesn't sound like it's the case here. The OP knows who was responsible for his car.

All the OP has to say is "I don't know who had custody of the car during the time of the infraction; I was not there". And he would not be lying.

As far as stealing ... he got the car back so there is not need to call the police in his opinion; plus others can drive the car via permission of who he gives permission to.

 

[Max The DOg]

You are the OP.- Also, i'd be more concerned that my spouse seems to have a lead-foot while driving my car and doesn't want to stand-up and accept the consequences of their actions.

Outside of that, what evidence would your spouse submit that you lied on an official document that they were the person who had "care, custody, or control of their vehicle at the time of the infraction"?

The whole purpose of exploring spousal privilege and communications with relations to civil court is to avoid such a document being entered into evidence against the spouse to begin with.

If I were your spouse I'd worry about your basic reading comprehension. I guess its my fault for asking anonymous advice on the internet.