Road conditions reported improperly on traffic ticket

[The Dude]

You forget, the citation is NOT evidence, it is merely a charging instrument. The court will decide the issue on testimony, not the citation. The officer could have said dry and sunny, and it would have made little difference aside from putting the officer's observation skills in question.

When it goes to court, the defendant can point out the black ice and the judge can choose to dismiss. It may very well be law or policy that requires an officer to write a citation for any assigned fault in a collision no matter the mitigation. Or, it could be that the officer saw something that those of us who were NOT there did not see.

I agree and I understand, but "reasonable control" is dependent on the enviornmental conditions. We don't know why the cop wrote "wet." Maybe it was wet by the time he wrote the citation, maybe it was a mistake, or maybe he was lying. In court, the driver will have the chance to ask these questions to the cop, explain to the judge that black ice was present and that the roads were otherwise dry and free of ice, and that the cop had a salt truck brought in. If the OP has been honest with us, he won't need a sympathetic judge, he just needs a reasonable one. And yes, it will be a test of his observational skills. Obviously, he realized it was slick, because the brought in the ice. The driver should ask the cop if he noticed the black ice while he was driving to the scene and if he took any precautions. If he says he only noticed it after he got out, then that should back up the driver. The driver should also note if the weather was getting warmer and how long the cop took to arrive, in case the road conditions changed before the cop could observe them.

 

[diesel9]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. The Dude, your responses were very helpful.

ORC 4511.202 is the citation. To paraphrase the law, you can't operate a vehicle without maintaining reasonable control. My wife had been driving on this roasdfor about 25 miles prior to hitting the black ice. She says the road was dry and there were no traction or controllability issues prior to hitting the black ice.

I think the key here is the word "reasonable". I think my wife's actions were reasonable and the black ice was an unknown, hidden hazard. Another driver also spun out in the same spot while my wife was waiting for the police to arrive. That driver was issued a citaion as well.

I can't understand why the officer would mark the conditions as wet when he clearly knew there was ice present. I almost have to think he was trying to strengthen his position for issuing the citation.

Based on all of this, I think we will fight this ticket in court. I am very curious to see how a judge will view this situation.

Thanks again.

 

[CdwJava]

I can only guess that the officer checked "wet" because he felt it was wet at the time. Of course the issue of the ice is a relevant lineof inquiry at trial.

As for the citation, he may be under orders to issue a citation for the primary collision factor in ANY collision. Since the PCF is going to involve the moving vehicle, there is really no other option in that. Yes, the ice is a mitigating circumstance, but the subjective issue of what is "reasonable" may be an issue for the court and not for the officer to decide.

 

[Zigner]

I can't understand why the officer would mark the conditions as wet when he clearly knew there was ice present.

Listen to CDWJava - he's a Highway Patrol officer.

As for your statement above...as you know, there must be WATER in order for there to be ICE.

 

[diesel9]

Listen to CDWJava - he's a Highway Patrol officer.

As for your statement above...as you know, there must be WATER in order for there to be ICE.

Yes I am aware that ice is water in it's solid state. I wouldn't describe ice as water though. I would call it what it is. The officer had the option to report the conditions as icy, which he knew was the case, yet he reported the conditions as wet. Seems to me a law enforcement professional would want to report the circumstances as accurately as possible. This is particularly true if the road conditions were a major causal factor in the incident

If you had a small block of frozen water in your glass of soda pop would you call it an ICE cube or a frozen block of water? Do you call it ICE skating or frozen water skating?

 

[Zigner]

[/B]


Yes I am aware that ice is water in it's solid state. I wouldn't describe ice as water though. I would call it what it is. The officer had the option to report the conditions as icy, which he knew was the case, yet he reported the conditions as wet. Seems to me a law enforcement professional would want to report the circumstances as accurately as possible. This is particularly true if the road conditions were a major causal factor in the incident

If you had a small block of frozen water in your glass of soda pop would you call it an ICE cube or a frozen block of water? Do you call it ICE skating or frozen water skating?

Ok, let me re-phrase. It is entirely possible for there to be ice AND water present. That would mean the road has water AND ice. Thus, it would be wet and icy and could be described either way.

As you can see, the note on the citation will NOT, in and of itself, get the cite dismissed.

 

[The Dude]

As for the citation, he may be under orders to issue a citation for the primary collision factor in ANY collision. Since the PCF is going to involve the moving vehicle, there is really no other option in that. Yes, the ice is a mitigating circumstance, but the subjective issue of what is "reasonable" may be an issue for the court and not for the officer to decide.

I understand, and I think it's a terrible idea to force officers to write such a ticket. We expect officers to use their good judgement all day long in every situation, yet stuff like this still happens. Since officers almost always do use good judgment, this is a slap in their face, along with it being unfair to the driver. It's hard not to conclude that this method is just one in a long line of economic driven ordinances disguised as public safety.

 

[The Dude]

As you can see, the note on the citation will NOT, in and of itself, get the cite dismissed.

I think we're beyond such a simplistic interpretation of the original post, don't you think?

 

[Zigner]

I think we're beyond such a simplistic interpretation of the original post, don't you think?

The guy is still stuck on getting the ticket dismissed outright because the officer marked"wet" and not "icy".

 

[HighwayMan]

I doubt that the check off boxes for roadway condition on the ticket are anything more than informational in nature. The actual roadway conditions do not appear to be an element of the offense.

"Reasonable control" is very subjective and something the officer would have to articulate in court as part of his testimonial evidence.

 

[The Dude]

The guy is still stuck on getting the ticket dismissed outright because the officer marked"wet" and not "icy".

I don't doubt that you believe what you wrote.

 

[diesel9]

Thanks again for the responses. I've never really thought that the error on the citation would get the case dismissed, although I did think it was possible. That's why I asked the question.

It bugs me that the Deputy seems to have ignored the fact that there was ice present. His motivation for doing this is unclear. Maybe it was just an error, maybe he was trying to strengthen the state's case. I think we can all agree that ice was a factor in this accident and it should have been reported. If there was water and ice he could have checked both boxes on the citation.

I got some free advice from an attorney yesterday over the phone. He said it is likely that the black ice will be considered a mitigating factor, possibly reducing or eliminating the fine and points on my wife's driving record should she be found guilty.

The attorney's advice backs up my contention that an accurate description of the road conditions is critical to the outcome of this case. Ice on the road generally creates more of a hazard than water.

 

[diesel9]

One more thing.

My original post asked two questions:

1. Can we beat this based on the inaccurate citation?

2. Can we beat this based on the unknown hazard (ice) that was present?

I posted on this forum because I have zero experience in legal matters. I am an Airline Pilot by profession. I was hoping to get advice from others on this forum who have more knowledge and experience in these matters than I do.

I may not agree with all of the reponses that I've gotten, but I do appreciate everyone's help.

 

[csi7]

By taking this to court, you have the opportunity to have your information included in the evidence for this matter.

You have to go to court to show evidence that the way the officer had written the ticket was not correct and why.

Aerial photographs of the area might be included, along with pictures of the site at different times of the day and night might also be also shown if that shows the difference in the road in different weather conditions.

 

[Zigner]

One more thing.

My original post asked two questions:

1. Can we beat this based on the inaccurate citation?

2. Can we beat this based on the unknown hazard (ice) that was present?

I posted on this forum because I have zero experience in legal matters. I am an Airline Pilot by profession. I was hoping to get advice from others on this forum who have more knowledge and experience in these matters than I do.

I may not agree with all of the reponses that I've gotten, but I do appreciate everyone's help.

The first question has already been discussed and you have received a thorough explanation as to WHY you shouldn't even bother to go down that road (no pun intended)

For the second question: As a pilot - you understand that icing can occur in certain situations, even if it hasn't been reported or forecasted (ie: it's UNKNOWN). As a driver, one is expected to also understand this. Icing CAN be expected, even if it's unknown. THAT is why your wife did commit the offense she is charged with. AGAIN, you may, in fact, end up with a judge who is sympathetic to the situation, but it doesn't change the fact that she failed to maintain reasonable control of her car, based on the conditions.