• 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.

Help with school zone ticket 9-21-5-6(d)

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

jeepnsleep

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

I entered a forum thread yesterday and for some reason it looks like it didn't post so I am retyping/reposting again and apologize if both show up.

I was on my way to work at 1:30pm yesterday afternoon and was approaching a school zone (school sits about 300 feet off the road and is connected to the main highway I was travelling on by an entrance road) and noticed a state police car sitting there at the end of the entrance road. I was driving about 60 or so and although the posted sign says "40mph when children present" I have always taken this to mean in the mornings and afternoons when school busses are present and bringing/taking kids to/from school. I fully understand the need to slow down to 40mph when busses and kids are present but I don't see the need to go 40mph when no busses or kids are present and the school sits way off the road. After going through the zone I noticed he pulled out and caught up to me and pulled me over. He cited me going 63 in a 40 and I told him that I interpreted the "when children present" portion of the sign to mean as explained above, when busses are coming/going and children are actually visible and present near the roadway I was traveling on. He said the condition "when children present" includes the children being in the school building itself and that they don't have to be present in or near the roadway for the condition to be in effect. The sign does not state anything about certain times of the day the speed is in effect and there are no yellow blinking lights to designate when the zone is to be enforced, just the 40mph sign with the "when children present" small sign below it.

The officer stated that I mis-interpreted the sign and that the 40mph was enforceable at all times, even during weekends and holidays. Essentially he is telling me then it should be treated as a 40mph zone 24/7/365. I would be fine with that if the sign merely said "40mph" period. But by adding the "when children present" condition then I feel the 40mph limit can only be applied and enforced when certain criteria are met to satisfy the condition. However, I have looked online and can find no example of Indiana IC code that defines "when children present". Other states have clear definitions of this such as "children visible from the road" or "children at the curbside, crosswalk or within 30 feet of the roadway". I don't understand how you can add a condition to a speed zone sign, and be able to enforce it without any clear definition of the condition itself.

The infraction on the ticket is 9-21-5-6(d). This is the first ticket I've had in years. I plan on contesting the charge, and plan on gathering evidence such as photos of the school entrance road and lack of children present during the same day/time as the supposed infraction, as well as copies of the indiana IC code showing no real definition of the condition "when children present" and copies of the same code from other states showing an actual definition that isn't left open to interpretation to each individual.

It just happened yesterday and the infraction listed on the ticket isn't listed on the small list of codes/fines he gave me so I have to wait (5) business days just to call the county clerk and find out what the fine will be. I'm assuming they do this since the fine is probably based on the actual condtions of the traffic stop and not just a flat fee.

I am fine paying the fine and accepting the infraction if I clearly misunderstood the law and will obviously learn a valuable lesson from it, but I feel that the circumstances in which it happened are not 100% clear and if the rules are left open to interpretation and not clearly defined then this sort of thing will happen and I feel compelled to fight it.

I would appreciate any input anyone has on this, ways to bolster my case to the judge and any points I have missed. Thanks in advance!
 


HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
I wouldn't bother with photos of children missing. What's the point to that?

Either you're right or your're wrong. State your case and let the judge decide. Have you looked at the statute? You seem to indicate that you've looked at similar statutes for other states, but what about your own?
 

HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
Upon re-reading your post it seems like you did look at the statute.

The real issue seems to be what it means to have children present. Maybe there is case law on this maybe not. Again, state your case and let the judge decide. Bringing up other state's statutes won't get you anywhere because they are irrelevant.
 

jeepnsleep

Junior Member
I wouldn't bother with photos of children missing. What's the point to that?
My point was that the photos would show a representation of the lack of children or school busses present at the time of day I was passing through and therefore give validity to my interpretation of "when children present" and although I admittedly was speeding I feel the ticket should reflect "going 63 in a 55" instead of "going 63 in a 40" since it is a state road with an assumed speed of 55 unless otherwise stated, which the "40 when children present" doesn't clearly define itself.
 

jeepnsleep

Junior Member
Upon re-reading your post it seems like you did look at the statute.

The real issue seems to be what it means to have children present. Maybe there is case law on this maybe not. Again, state your case and let the judge decide. Bringing up other state's statutes won't get you anywhere because they are irrelevant.
Agreed, my main point is not being able to find a clear definition of "when children present". My point of bringing other state's statues up is to show that while other states have clear and defined statutes regarding children present indiana does not, and therefore if Indiana can't clearly define what the law should be, then how can it be enforced? And if it is to be merely left open to personal interpretation (mine or the officers) then it becomes not a matter of law but a matter of my word against his....in my opinion you shouldn't be able to enforce a law that you can't clearly define or expect the majority of the public to be aware of with some common sense.

Thanks for your input I appreciate it!
 

HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
A photo taken at a time other than when the actual infraction allegedly occurred doesn't really help in my opinion.

To me "children present" means physically present, not "any time no matter what" - or else the "children present" sign wouldn't be necessary.

Again, other state's statutes don't mean anything and I think you'd be wasting time even bringing up specific statutes - something a judge may not appreciate.

While I can't say for sure what the outcome will be, I am siding with you - just present the fact in a clear and concise manner. If you can get a free consultation with a local traffic attorney you may have a better idea of your chances, but I think you're closer to being right than the officer was.
 

jeepnsleep

Junior Member
A photo taken at a time other than when the actual infraction allegedly occurred doesn't really help in my opinion.
Unfortunately by the time he pulled out behind me and actually pulled me over I was about a quarter mile past the end of the school zone so I wasn't able to take a photo at the actual time, but I just thought it would give an idea of the (lack of) children/school bus activity at that time of day. I suppose I could call the school principal and explain the situation and see if they would be willing to provide a signed document stating there were no school activity on the road at that day/time but that may be reaching a bit.

To me "children present" means physically present, not "any time no matter what" - or else the "children present" sign wouldn't be necessary.

Again, other state's statutes don't mean anything and I think you'd be wasting time even bringing up specific statutes - something a judge may not appreciate.

While I can't say for sure what the outcome will be, I am siding with you - just present the fact in a clear and concise manner. If you can get a free consultation with a local traffic attorney you may have a better idea of your chances, but I think you're closer to being right than the officer was.
I hesitated even bringing up other state's statutes but I was just trying to show Indiana's lack of clear definition which would hopefully support my interpretation vs that of the officers.

I am going to check around town for a traffic law attorney and see about a free consultation to even see if it is worth pursuing reducing the charge vs just paying the fine. I know just paying the fine is what they like to see and I have a hard time doing that when I feel I am in the right.

Thanks for your opinions..I appreciate them and makes me feel better to know that someone else other than myself sees my side of the situation! Have a great weekend!
 

jeepnsleep

Junior Member
Court Result

Had my court date this morning. I showed up a half hour early and the officer who wrote me the ticket was already there. The prosecutor wanted to speak with me and basically gave me my plead options and explained everything which I appreciated but already knew. He asked me what my goal was and I told him I was trying to show that since there were no children present at the time of the ticket that the "when children present" condition was not met therefore the speed limit at the time of the ticket should have been 55mph, not 40mph, thereby allowing me to defer the ticket. He said since the ticket was in a school zone it was an automatic no-deferral and that was not an option. So that basically shot my defense. He said since my driving record was spotless and that I had shown him respect and was personable he said if I was willing to plead "no contest" (basically saying I'm not guilty but I'll still pay a fine) he would drop the fine and points as low as they would go. He offered me 45mph in a 40 instead of 63mph in a 40 and offered 2 points instead of six, and a $118 fine instead of $154. He said the deal was guaranteed, and if I tried to fight it, although I had a strong point with my evidence there was no guarantee I would win. Even if I did win (not guaranteed) the points and fine would be higher than the deal he offered. I figured that was the best option so I plead no contest.

I asked him point blank what the indiana definition of "when children present" was and he said he didn't think there was one. I asked him how a law can be enforced when it can't be defined. He said there are hundreds of laws that are similarly fuzzy, but that doesn't answer my question. I also asked how other states can clearly define it but indiana can't (delaware law even states that the children inside the school do NOT constitute being present), something the officer quoted at the traffic stop.

I also asked the prosecutor how the officer could state children being inside the school as present as law when the law itself has no definition. He basically said chalk it up to experience, which again does not answer my question. I guess I must be content that there is no clear definition of the law, even though officers can write tickets based on said law. Also interesting how the "fuzziness" of the law is clearly in favor of the court, not the defendant.

All things considered it was a more positive outcome than I had imagined and took less than 10 minutes. I figure even though I feel i am right, the deal made was better than the possibility of losing and since our county has one judge and one prosecutor I am sure they know the law better than I do.
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Had my court date this morning. I showed up a half hour early and the officer who wrote me the ticket was already there. The prosecutor wanted to speak with me and basically gave me my plead options and explained everything which I appreciated but already knew. He asked me what my goal was and I told him I was trying to show that since there were no children present at the time of the ticket that the "when children present" condition was not met therefore the speed limit at the time of the ticket should have been 55mph, not 40mph, thereby allowing me to defer the ticket. He said since the ticket was in a school zone it was an automatic no-deferral and that was not an option. So that basically shot my defense. He said since my driving record was spotless and that I had shown him respect and was personable he said if I was willing to plead "no contest" (basically saying I'm not guilty but I'll still pay a fine) he would drop the fine and points as low as they would go. He offered me 45mph in a 40 instead of 63mph in a 40 and offered 2 points instead of six, and a $118 fine instead of $154. He said the deal was guaranteed, and if I tried to fight it, although I had a strong point with my evidence there was no guarantee I would win. Even if I did win (not guaranteed) the points and fine would be higher than the deal he offered. I figured that was the best option so I plead no contest.

I asked him point blank what the indiana definition of "when children present" was and he said he didn't think there was one. I asked him how a law can be enforced when it can't be defined. He said there are hundreds of laws that are similarly fuzzy, but that doesn't answer my question. I also asked how other states can clearly define it but indiana can't (delaware law even states that the children inside the school do NOT constitute being present), something the officer quoted at the traffic stop.

I also asked the prosecutor how the officer could state children being inside the school as present as law when the law itself has no definition. He basically said chalk it up to experience, which again does not answer my question. I guess I must be content that there is no clear definition of the law, even though officers can write tickets based on said law. Also interesting how the "fuzziness" of the law is clearly in favor of the court, not the defendant.

All things considered it was a more positive outcome than I had imagined and took less than 10 minutes. I figure even though I feel i am right, the deal made was better than the possibility of losing and since our county has one judge and one prosecutor I am sure they know the law better than I do.
Just FYI - pleading "no contest" is NOT like saying you're not guilty but that you'll still pay a fine. It's saying that you aren't pleading guilty but you won't fight the charges. It is equivalent to a guilty plea in-so-far as the current court matter is concerned.
 

jeepnsleep

Junior Member
Just FYI - pleading "no contest" is NOT like saying you're not guilty but that you'll still pay a fine. It's saying that you aren't pleading guilty but you won't fight the charges. It is equivalent to a guilty plea in-so-far as the current court matter is concerned.
That's what I meant to say, but didn't word it quite right :D
 

HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
Even if I did win (not guaranteed) the points and fine would be higher than the deal he offered.
I don't get THAT. If you did win there would be NO fine and NO points!

Since you acknowledged that you WERE speeding I think you got a great deal. You're goal was to raise the speed limit essentially negating the school zone. Sounds like you pretty much accomplished that and more.
 

jeepnsleep

Junior Member
I don't get THAT. If you did win there would be NO fine and NO points!

Since you acknowledged that you WERE speeding I think you got a great deal. You're goal was to raise the speed limit essentially negating the school zone. Sounds like you pretty much accomplished that and more.
I think so as well. I think the only way I could have gotten off with no points/no fine is if I was going 54/40 instead of 63/40, which is still silly since in my opinion it shouldn't have been a 40mph zone when I was ticketed in the first place due to the children present condition not being met. Funny thing is the day before the officer pulled me over he was sitting there as well and I went through about 54 or 55 and he didn't do anything. I wonder if he knew that anyone going 55 or under in that 40 zone may have a case therefore he didn't bother stopping them?

I think the prosecutor was genuinely surprised that I had done my homework regarding the ic code and case law. When he and I spoke privately and he admitted indiana didn't have a true definition of "when children present" I told him that the officer had told me at the traffic stop that the kids inside the school count as being present. He said he had no comment on that. I then asked him how the officer could be quoting the definition of when children present when indiana has no such definition. I told him I hoped the officer was actually quoting law and not conjecturing. He didnt' have much to say other than "well I guess you can just chalk it up to experience"...

I was actually looking forward to seeing the judge and having my case heard if nothing else just to get his definition of the law and overall opinion, but in this case it would have been pointless to fight it for moral reasons and wind up with more severe penalty than to just take the deal, something I'm sure the prosecutor planned on doing.

My brother in law who is also a state trooper said he hoped the prosecutor talked to the ticketing officer after we had our private conversation and hopefully suggested to him not ticketing people in that zone outside of normal school loading/unloading hours. It won't hurt me to slow down thru there every day but if he tickets me again in that zone for 55/40 or below I'm definitely getting an attorney and fighting it.

Thanks all for your opinions....it's been a learning experience!
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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