Unjustified Careless Driving

[Denjiki]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I work road construction, and today I got out of work at about 1:00. I left the jobsite and was heading down the road in my car. I was not speeding, nor driving recklessly. My boss called me on the phone soon after i left, so i answered and figured he wanted me to come back to work for a little while. He just wanted to tell me i forgot my coat in his truck, no big deal. Well, i then got on the freeway and within minutes I saw a cop, he pulled out and pulled me over immediately. I had my seatbelt on, was not speeding on the highway, so i did not know why he pulled me over. He asked if i knew why and I said no sir, i wasn't speeding and i had my seatbelt on so I don't know why. He proceded to tell me he had reports of people calling in and saying they saw me crossing over the centerline and on the shoulder of the road down by where i work at. I told him that was inaccurate and i had not been doing that, and also that I work by where he was getting these reports. He asked why he recieved these calls then, so I said I wasn't sure but that my boss called me soon after I left and i was on the phone just briefly, so maybe that was why. The officer was totally an ******* to me for no reason whatsoever. After everything I said was "no sir" or "no officer" and i was not disrespectful, but the officer continued to be very rude to me. 2 other cops pulled in behind him and were at the scene too, like i was some kind of criminal. After he took my information , he went back to his car and came back with a careless driving ticket. HE wrote on the ticket that i was "texting" on my phone, even though I told him i was TALKING on it just briefly. I asked him if i had been disrespectful at all, and he said no but he would have cited me either way. Needless to say I'm pretty pissed off now, and am wondering how he could justify writing me that ticket when he did not witness anything himself and was just going on what a caller said. Do you think it's possible to get this dismissed or atleast lowered to a lesser violation? I'm moving for a dismissal because this ticket has no justification whatsoever. Any input would be appreciated

 

[reactive]

I checked - in Michigan, there's no law against using a cell phone while driving. Maybe the car is a very common-looking one? Did callers report a license plate number (or company markings)? If the answers are Yes and No, respectively, I think you could argue "reasonable doubt" in court, if the lack of a plate number (or markings), confession, and police witness doesn't invalidate the ticket. The inaccuracy on the ticket might also help, say, in a set-up cross-examination.

 

[The Occultist]

OP, is it possible that once you began talking on your phone you began driving like a jackass? I have been a passenger for two of my friends that started driving erratically once they started talking on their phone, and when I brought this up with them, they had no idea what I was talking about; they honestly believed that their driving had not changed at all once they started talking on the phone even though it clearly had.

 

[justalayman]

fight the ticket. demand the state present the witness.

No witness, no conviction.

Now, this is not saying that the occultists suggestion is not correct but they do have to prove their case and since the officer did not see anything himself, he cannot testify to the validity of the complaint so the complainant has to take the stand and testify to the action.

 

[JETX]

And the REAL answer.... NO ONE CAN ANSWER YOU without your providing the ACTUAL citation (number) shown on the ticket. Any answer without that CRITICAL information is just a guess.

 

[Maestro64]

Yes the officer can write a ticket for any reason he likes, whether it will hold up in court is different story.

It does not matter what you did, and people trying to say you could have done something wrong is irrelevant.

Go to court and exercise you rights to confront your accusers. In this case its the people who the officer is claiming called on you. The officer wrote a ticket without first hand knowledge of what happen, and all witness against you must have first hand knowledge. All the officer can say in court is he wrote a ticket base on what someone else said, he can not testify to what they saw, it is considered hearsay.

Go to court and exercise you rights, and other one of your rights is you do not have to testify against yourself. The officer has to burden to prove what happen. At this point it is all hearsay.

 

[justalayman]

well, based upon the OP's statement of receiving a ticket for careless driving, I can easily infer that MCL 257.626b is the law cited. Not that it really makes any difference because the specific law is not why the citation would be contestable but the fact the officer did not observe the alleged infraction himself. As such, the state must present a witness to testify to the alleged infraction.

Now, if anybody wants to toss out some other section, simply place it in place of 257.626b above and alter the "careless driving" to reflect the title of the section and start again. It changes nothing.

 

[patstew]

OP, is it possible that once you began talking on your phone you began driving like a jackass? I have been a passenger for two of my friends that started driving erratically once they started talking on their phone, and when I brought this up with them, they had no idea what I was talking about; they honestly believed that their driving had not changed at all once they started talking on the phone even though it clearly had.

I was wondering about this as well, particularly since in OP's OP, he says:
"He proceded to tell me he had reports of people calling in..." Sounds like multiple reports, which would have more credibility than just one.

 

[Maestro64]

I was wondering about this as well, particularly since in OP's OP, he says:
"He proceded to tell me he had reports of people calling in..." Sounds like multiple reports, which would have more credibility than just one.

and we know police are allow to exaggerated to make a point or get the person to admit a truth. Standard training practice for police, lie to the person since most people will automatic correct you even if it means the correct information will get them in trouble.

Too many times people have the misconception since it is a police officer they will not lie to you, wrong, they do and are trained to do so and the Supreme court has up held this practice.

Just because an officer says something does not automatically make it fact or true.

 

[xylene]

Don't admit your violation to the police...

I told him that was inaccurate and i had not been doing that, and also that I work by where he was getting these reports. He asked why he recieved these calls then, so I said I wasn't sure but that my boss called me soon after I left and i was on the phone just briefly, so maybe that was why. T

Poster appears to:

Admit to careless drive because he was using cell phone and distracted

AND

Admit to the accuracy of the alleged called in complaints of bad driving.

 

[justalayman]

as it is, talking on your cell is not a ticketable offense in Michigan . Talking on your cell, in itself, cannot be considered careless driving.

257.626b Careless or negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.
Sec. 626b.

A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or a frozen public lake, stream, or pond or other place open to the general public including an area designated for the parking of vehicles in a careless or negligent manner likely to endanger any person or property, but without wantonness or recklessness, is responsible for a civil infraction.

as to OP admitting the careless driving;

no, she didn't. Her statement was:

He proceded to tell me he had reports of people calling in and saying they saw me crossing over the centerline and on the shoulder of the road down by where i work at. I told him that was inaccurate and i had not been doing that

He asked why he recieved these calls then, so I said I wasn't sure but that my boss called me soon after I left and i was on the phone just briefly, so maybe that was why.

as you can see, she specifically denied the poor driving in her first statement. In her second, she surely did not admit to any poor driving but she did surely leave the door open to such a charge without a firm denial.

bottom line; the person that called in will have to testify for the careless charge to be prosecuted. The officer is not a witness to anything so he cannot testify to the careless driving. He cannot even state that a person called in to the station because he was not there to take or even observe the call. He was simply responding to dispatch sending him out on a call and issued the ticket based on what he was told.

So, no witness, not guilty.